ID: nht87-1.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Barry Bartlett

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Barry Bartlett President Canadian Automotive Radiator Air Industrial Park P.O. Box 189 Debert, Nova Scotia, BOM 1GO CANADA

Dear Mr. Bartlett:

Thank you for your letter of May 5, 1987, concerning Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. You asked the agency to confirm that the requirements set out in the standard apply only to fuel systems installed as items of original equipment in new vehicles and do not apply to aftermarket fuel systems. Several of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply both to original any aftermarket equipment. Standard No. 301, however, applies only to fuel system; installed as items of original equipment in new vehicles.

Although the agency does not have any standards that directly apply to aftermarket fuel systems, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which includes aftermarket fuel systems, are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall any remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes those responsibilities.

In addition, installation of your product can be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle Safety Standards. Thus, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair shop that installs replacement fuel tanks most ensure that it does not knowingly render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(a) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with the vehicle safety equipment.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 5, 1987 Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety, 400 7th St. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Recent discussions with Mr. Steven Wood, representative of the Legal Regulations Office of the National Highway Safety Transportation, regards gas tank production for the automotive market, has prompted my writing this letter to you for clarification and confirmation. It is Mr. Wood's opinion that regulation standard number 301 as outlined in your Federal Motor Standards Act governs gas tank specifications aimed at original equipment production and does not cover products produced solely for aftermarket consumption. We would appreciate it greatly if you would confirm Mr. Wood's observations.

Thanking you in advance for your assistance in this matter, I remain,

Yours very truly,

CANADIAN AUTOMOTIVE RADIATOR EXCHANGE AND MANUFACTURING LIMITED

Barry Bartlett, President

ID: nht87-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: A.L. Bragg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 7th Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: INTERPRETATION OF PARAGRAPH S4.1.1.3 WHICH STATES: "INTERMEDIATE SIDEMARKER DEVICES ARE NOT REQUIRED ON VEHICLES LESS THAN 30 FEET IN OVERALL LENGTH"

Dear Ms. Jones:

We would appreciate it if you could clarify the above referenced section of 108 as it pertains to both tables 2 and 3 which state that trailers, both under 80 and over 80 inches, require intermediate side marker lamps. However, a footnote in both of thes e tables points out paragraph S4.1.1.3 which does not require intermediate sidemarkers on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length. Our question is in regard to the proper interpretation of vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length. In the case of trailers, does this mean just the trailer as it sits by itself or does it include the power unit that may be pulling the trailer? In the case of straight trucks, that is, trucks in which the power unit and the trailer are not separable, our understanding is that the overall length refers to everything between the front and the rear bumpers.

Thank you for your comments. Please feel free to contact us if there are any questions.

Sincerely,

TRUCK-LITE CO., INC. A.L. Bragg Laboratory Manager

ALB/bme

cc: B. Yorks J. Swanson J. Latona B. Maternowski

Mr. A. L. Bragg Laboratory Manager Truck-Lite Co., Inc 310 East Elmwood Ave. Falconer, NY 14733

Dear Mr. Bragg:

This is in reply to your letter of October 14, 1986, in which you ask how the overall length of vehicles is calculated in determining whether they are to be equipped with intermediate side marker lamps.

With respect to trailers, you ask whether overall length includes the towing unit. No, the overall length to be calculated is only that of the trailer.

As for trucks, you assume that overall length "refers to everything between the front and rear bumpers." I assume that you are including the bumpers in the quoted phase, and that would be correct.

If you have any further questions we would be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief counsel

ID: nht87-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1986, with reference to the distance between a front turn signal lamp and a lower beam headlamp.

In brief, SAE Standard J588e, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 requires a minimum separation distance of 4 inches between the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the lo wer bean headlamp. You have pointed out that a replaceable bulb headlamp does not have a retaining ring, and you have presented two possible substitutes as a measuring point. The first (your Item A) is the outer edge of the headlamp, and the second (your Item B) is the end of the effective area of the reflector. You believe that Item B is the more appropriate.

We concur with your interpretation. Of the two options, the distance to the edge of the effective area of the reflector is the one most similar to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the lower beam headlamp. The basis for this interpretation is the assumption that the headlamp lens between the outer edge of the headlamp and the edge of the effective area of the reflector is not used for production of the lamp's bean, has mo significant luminance, and therefore will not mask the turn signal.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 21, 1986

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones,

Re : Distance between a front turn signal lamp and a low beam headlamp)

In Motor Vehicle Safety Standard N0.108, Paragraph 4.3.1.7, the following is prescribed:

S4.3.1.7 The requirement that there be not less than 4 inches between a front turn signal lamp and a low beam headlamp, specified in SAE Standard J588e, "Turn Signal Lamps," September 1970, shall not apply if the sum of the candlepower values of the turn signal lamps Measured at the test point within each group listed in Figure 1c is not less than two and one-half times the sum specified for each group for yellow turn signal lamps.

According to the SAE Standard J588e, the distance is defined as from the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam. This definition applies only to a standardized headlamp. What definition is appropriate for a replaceable bulb headlamp, in other words, an unstandardized headlamp? We think B in the following definition is appropriate.

A : From the filament center of the front turn signal lamp to the outer edge of a low beam headlamp

B : From the filament center of the front turn signal lamp to the end of the effective area of the reflector of a low beam headlamp

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

ID: nht87-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jean-Paul Turgeon -- Security and Legality Manager, Prevost Car Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jean-Paul Turgeon Security and Legality Manager Prevost Car Inc Sainte-Claire, Quebec Canada

In your letter of November 7, 1986, to the Administrator, you have asked whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires intermediate Bide marker lamps to be mounted at approximately the same level as the front and rear marker lamps.

No. The requirement that they be located at or near the midpoint between front and rear side marker lamp refers to the horizontal distance between the front and rear lamps, and the intermediate lamps are subject only to the requirement that they not be m ounted less than 15 inches above the road surface.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

U.S. Department of Transportation N.H.T.S. 400, 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C.

Attention: Diane K. Steed, Administrator

Re: F.M.V.S.S. 571.S.108 Intermediate Side Markers (Table 2)

Dear Mrs. Steed:

We are looking for an interpretation of 5.108 regulation as follows:

It is specified on 5.108.20, Table 2, that the intermediate side marker be located at or near the mid point between the front and rear side marker lamps.

Our question is: Does that mean that the intermediate side marker must be approximately , the same level as the front and rear marker lamps, i.e. on the same level line?

Yours truly,

Jean-Paul Turgeon Security and Legality Manager

ID: nht87-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Lynn Walker -- Sales Manager, Panamasia West Coast, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Lynn Walker Sales Manager Panamasia West Coast, Inc. 16205 Distribution Way Cerritos, CA 90701

This is in reply to your letter of September 17, 1986, to Mr. Vinson this office asking whether a lamp you wish to import "is legal for highway use in the U.S." The lamp is an aftermarket auxiliary turn signal that is mounted on top of each front fender. The lens is green, but could be any color that is legal for highway use. The lens is visible "from all directions" but could be designed so that it is visible only to the rear, i.e. to the driver.

Federal motor vehicle lighting requirements do not currently apply to aftermarket lamps of this nature. Whether the lamp is legal, therefore, is a question to be answered under the laws of each State in which it will be sold and operated. While we are no t familiar with State lighting laws you nay find that there is a greater likelihood that the auxiliary turn signal lamp will be acceptable if it has a yellow lens, or if its green lens is visible only to the driver.

I hope that this is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

PANAMASIA WEST COAST, INC. 16205 Distribution Way Cerritos, CA 90701 (213) 926-5591

Sept. 17, 1986

Dear Mr. Vinson,

We are an Import-Export Company specializing in Automotive Parts and Accessories.

We are interested in importing the automotive lamp which is described on the following page.

We wish to know if this type of lamp is legal for highway use in the U.S. If any alterations are necessary to make this lamp legal, please advise us of them.

If we can give you more information please don't hesitate to contact us at the above address or telephone number.

With our best regards, PANAMASIA WEST COAST, INC.

Lynn Walker Sales Manager Auto Parts

DIRECTIONAL LAMP - 12 VOLT

APPLICATION:

THIS IS AN ADD-ON ACCESSORY FOR PASSENGER CARS.

INSTALLATION:

IT IS INSTALLED ON TOP OF THE FRONT FENDERS ABOVE THE HEAD LAMP. APPLICATION IS STICK-ON. THE WIRE CAN BE RUN INTO THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT AS IN THE ILLUSTRATION, OR THE INSTALLER MAY DRILL A HOLE IN THE FENDER DIRECTLY UNDER THE LAMP AND RUN THE WIRE THR OUGH IT.

VISABILITY:

THE LENSE IS VISIBLE FROM ALL DIRECTIONS. THE LENSE AREA IS THE AREA HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW IN DIAGRAM 1. ALSO, PLEASE ADVISE US OF THE LEGALITY OF THE SAME LAMP IF IT WERE VISIBLE ONLY TO THE REAR (VISIBLE TO THE DRIVER).

MATERIAL: THE BASE IS OF FLEXIBLE PLASTIC. THE HOUSING AROUND THE LENSE IS OF METAL. THE LENSE IS PLASTIC. LENSE COLOR IS GREEN, BUT COULD BE ANY COLOR THAT IS LEGAL FOR HIGHWAY USE.

INSERT GRAPHICS HERE

ID: nht87-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Phil Rounds

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Phil Rounds, Esq. Rhodes, Hieronymus, Jones, Tucker & Gable 2800 Fourth National Bank Building 15 West Sixth Street Tulsa, OK 74119

Dear Mr. Rounds:

Thank you for your letter of October 22, 1986, requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 20B, Occupant Crash Protection, would apply to a model year 1982 vehicle. The answers to your two specific questions are discussed below.

You first asked about the requirements of S4.1.2.3 of the standard. You asked whether a manufacturer that has chosen to meet that provision of the standard by installing a Type 2 safety belt at each front outboard designated seating position is required to crash test those safety belts. As explained below, S4.1.2.3 does not require the Type 2 safety belts installed in accordance with that requirement to be subjected to a crash test.

S4.1.2 of the standard sets forth the requirements for passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1973, and before September 1, 1986. Thus, those requirements would apply to a model year 1982 passenger car. S4.1.2 provides that a manufacturer s hall meet the requirements of either S4.1.2.1, S4.2.2.2, or S4.1.2.3. Under S4.1.2.3, a manufacturer has the option of installing "a Type 2 seat belt assembly with a nondetachable shoulder belt that conforms to Standard No. 209" at each front outboard de signated seating position. Although Standard No. 209 establishes performance requirements for a safety belt, it does not require the crash testing of the belt.

You also asked whether lap belts installed in accordance with the requirements of S4.1.2.3 in a vehicle's rear seat must be crash tested. The answer is no, rear seat safety belts installed in accordance with S4.1.2.3 do not have to be crash tested. S4.1. 2.3 (c) sets the requirements for rear seats. It provides that a manufacturer may install either a "Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209. . . ." As explained above, Standard No. 209 does not require crash testing for safe ty belts.

As you requested, we are providing you with a certified copy of this letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Z. Jones NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, Room 5219 400 Seventh Street SW Washington DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Re: Interpretation Letter 49 CFR

Section 571.208 5.4.1.2.3

We are writing to request a certified copy of a letter of interpretation regarding conformity with FMVSS 208 as it applies to 1982 MY vehicles.

Specifically, please confirm that where a manufacturer of a 1982 MY vehicle has elected the third option (S.4.1.2.3) and employed type 2 seatbelts (i.e., three point belts), at each front outboard designated seating position, a dynamic crash test is not required. Further, that a 49 CFR Section 571.208 S 5.1 test is also not required with regard to lap belts in the rear designated seating positions where type 2 seatbelts are employed at each front outboard designated seating position.

Your immediate attention to this matter would be most appreciated. Enclosed is a check in the amount of $3.00 to cover administrative expenses.

Yours truly,

PHIL ROUNDS PLR/bv Enclosure

ID: nht87-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Donald P. Weiher -- Dirctor, Product Assurance, LTV Aerospace and Defense Company, AM General Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Donald P. Weiher Director-Product Assurance LTV Aerospace and Defense Company AM General Division P.O. Box 3330 Livonia, MI 48151-3330

This is in reply to your letter of September B, 1986, to Mr. Oesch of this Office asking whether certain military vehicles are "motor vehicles" for purposes of notification and remedy in the event they are discovered to have safety related defects.

Based on the information your letter provides, we must conclude that the tactical military vehicles in question are motor vehicles within the meaning of section 102 (3) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391 (3), and that they are subject to the defect notifi cation and remedy provisions of the Act, although, as military vehicles they are exempt from compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

You have described the vehicles in question as "all tactical vehicles designed for cross-country (40%), secondary (30%) and primary (30%) roads." Such vehicles include the M998 Series 1 1/4 ton truck, and other tactical military trucks such as the 2 1/2 ton M44 Series and the 5-ton M809 and M939 Series. You have noted that the Office of Defects Investigation has previously assigned campaign numbers for safety related defects on similar tactical military vehicles. You have also noted the agency's 1969 in terpretation on mini-bikes states, as you have quoted it, that "in the absence of clear evidence that, as a practical matter a vehicle is not being, or will not be, used on the public streets, roads, and highways the operating capability of a vehicle is the most relevant fact in determining whether that vehicle is a motor vehicle."

Under the information you have presented, the tactical military trucks are designed to be used 60% of the time on primary and secondary public roads. In our view, they must then be considered as having been designed primarily for use on the public roads, and hence, "motor vehicles" under the Act.

We have conferred with our Office of Defects Investigation, and it appears to us that when that office responded to your inquiries on February 19 and March 5, 1986, it acted in the belief that the vehicles in question are intended primarily for off road use and that they lack an operating capability for substantial on road use. The fact that the vehicles are intended for use on roads 60 percent of the time indicates operating capability for such use.

We hope that this clarifies the status of these vehicles with respect to the definition of "motor vehicle" contained in the Act. We appreciate your having requested this further consideration of this question. If you have further questions concerning thi s matter, please contact Mr. Taylor Vinson, an attorney in this office who can be reached by telephone at (202) 366 5263.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 8, 1986

Mr. Steven Oesch Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

- PETITION -

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Please provide concurrence with the attached interpretations from Mr. Philip W. Davis, Director, Office of Defects Investigation/Enforcement regarding military vehicles "not manufactured primarily for highway use."

A generalization would be that all tactical vehicles designed for cross-country (40%), secondary (30%) and primary (30%) roads such as the subject M998 Series 1 1/4 Ton Trucks (a.k.a. HUMM-V) would all be exempt by virtue of not being "manufactured prima rily for highway use" and therefore not considered to be a "MOTOR VEHICLE under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. (Title I, Part A, Sec. 102(3) Interpretation).

Our previous verbal direction from your office had been that although these vehicles may be exempt from compliance with the safety standards (Ref. 571.7(c) enclosed), they are not exempt from the Safety Act or the Regulations, further the enclosed interp retations dated October 3, 1969, 34 F.R. 15416 and published under Part 571.3 "Definitions" state "that in the absence of clear evidence that as a practical matter a vehicle is not being, or will not be, used on the public streets, roads or highways the operating capability of a vehicle is the most relevant fact in determining whether or not that vehicle is a motor vehicle under the act", leaves us confused. Since the Office of Defects Investigation has previously assigned campaign numbers for safety re lated defects on similar tactical military vehicles, we solicit your official interpretation and guidance regarding safety related defects on tactical military trucks, such as the noted 1 1/4 Ton M998 Series, the 2 1/2 Ton M44 Series and the 5-Ton M809 a nd M939 Series.

Sincerely,

Donald P. Weiher Director-Product Assurance

DPW/tlb

Mr. Fred I. Masten Supervisor - Warranty/Safety LTV Aerospace and Defense Company AM General Division 701 W. Chippewa Avenue South Bend, IN 46680-2841

Dear Mr. Masten:

Thank you for your letter of February 19, 1986, concerning the recall of 1984-1986 AM General M998 Series trucks.

As the vehicles involved in this campaign are specifically designed to meet military specifications and are not manufactured primarily for highway use, we do not consider this to be a motor vehicle safety defect recall under the provisions of the Nationa l Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Therefore, no further reports on this matter are necessary.

Sincerely,

Philip W. Davis Director Office of Defects Investigation Enforcement

Mr. Fred I. Masten Supervisor - Warranty/Safety LTV Aerospace and Defense Company AM General Division 701 W. Chippewa Avenue South Bend, IN 46680-2841

Dear Mr. Masten:

Thank you for your letter of January 27, 1986, concerning the recall of 1984-1986 AM General M998 Series trucks.

As the vehicles involved in this campaign are specifically designed to meet military specifications and are not manufactured primarily for highway use, we do not consider this to be a motor vehicle safety defect recall under the provisions of the Nationa l Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Therefore, no further reports on this matter are necessary.

Sincerely,

Philip W. Davis Director Office of Defects Investigation Enforcement

Sec. 102 (cont.) (3) "Motor vehicle" means any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

(4) "Motor vehicle equipment" means any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle, and any device, article, or apparel not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle (other than medicines, or eyeglasses prescribed by a physician or other duly licensed practitioner), which is manufactured, sold, de livered, offered, or intended for use exclusively to safeguard motor vehicles, drivers, passengers, and other highway users from risk of accident, injury or death.

s571.7 (cont.) (c) Military vehicles. No standards applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

(d) Export. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment in the circumstances provided in Section 108(b) (5) of the Act 15 U.S.C. 1397(b) (5)).

(e) Combining new and used components. When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the application of the requirements of this chapter, and the Act, unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

Interpretations

General. Compliance with Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is determined by actual date of manufacture, rather than model year designation.

Mini-bikes. A number of persons have asked the Federal Highway Administrator to reconsider his February 4, 1969, interpretation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 concerning mini-bikes (34 F.R. 1909). In that interpretation, the Administrator concluded that mini-bikes are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of section 102(3) of the Act, and are regarded as "motorcycles" or "motor-driven cycles" under the Federal Highway Administration regulations (34 F.R. 1909). Under those re gulations, motorcycles and motor-driven cycles must conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which imposes performance requirements relating to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.

The primary basis for the conclusion of the February 4 interpretation, as stated therein, was that "in the absence of clear evidence that as a practical matter a vehicle is not being, or will not be, used on the public streets, roads, or highways the ope rating capability of a vehicle is the most relevant fact in determining whether or not that vehicle is a motor vehicle under the ACT * * *" It was stated that if examination of a vehicle's operating capability revealed that the vehicle is "physically capable (either as offered for sale or without major additions or modifications) of being operated on the public streets, roads, or highways, the vehicle will be considered as having been manu factured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways'." It was also stated that a manufacturer would need to show substantially more than that it has advertised a vehicle as a recreational or private property vehicle or that use of the vehicle on a public roadway, as manufactured and sold, would be illegal in order to overcome a conclusion based on examination of the vehicle's operating capability.

Petitioners have urged the Administrator to abandon the operating capability test. They have argued that many vehicular types, such as self-propelled riding mowers, have an "operating capability" for use on the public roads and yet are obviously outside the class of vehicles which Congress subjected to safety regulations. True as that may be, the Administrator has decided to adhere to the view that the operating capability of a vehicle is an important criterion in determining whether it is a "motor vehi cle" within the meaning of the statute. As the above-quoted portion of the February 4, 1969, interpretation states, however, the operating capability test is not reached if there is "clear evidence that as a practical matter the vehicle is not being used on the public streets, roads, or highways." In the case of self-propelled riding mowers, golf carts, and many other similar self-propelled vehicles, such clear evidence exists.

It is clear from the definition of "motor vehicle" in section 102(3) of the Act* that the purpose for which a vehicle is manufactured is a basic factor in determining whether it was "manufactured primarily or use on the public streets, roads, and highway s." However, this does n ot mean that the proper classification of a particular vehicle is wholly dependent on the manufacturer's subjective state of mind. Instead, the Administrator intends to invoke the familiar principle that the purpose for which an act, such as the p roduction of a vehicle, is undertaken may be discerned from the actor's conduct in the light of the surrounding circumstances. Thus, if a vehicle is operationally capable of being used on public thoroughfares, and if in fact, a substantial proportion of the consuming public actually uses in that way, it is a "motor vehicle" without regard to the manufacturer's intent, however manifested. In such a case, it would be incumbent upon a manufacturer of such a vehicle either to alter the vehicle's design, con figuration, and equipment to render it unsuitable for on-road user or, by compliance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards, to render the vehicle safe for use on public streets, roads, and highways.

In borderline cases, other factors must also be considered. Perhaps the most important of these is whether state and local laws permit the vehicle in question to be used and registered for use on public highways. The nature of the manufacturer's promotio nal and marketing activities is also evidence of the use for which the vehicle is manufactured. Some relevant aspects of those activities are: (1) Whether the vehicle is advertised for on-road use or whether the manufacturer represents to the public that the vehicle is not for use on public roads; (2) whether the vehicle is sold through retail outlets that also deal in conventional motor vehicles; and (3) whether the manufacturer affixes a label warning owners of the vehicle not to use it for travel ove r public roads.

ID: nht87-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dr. Ernst; Hella KG Hueck & Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr. Ernst Hella KG Hueck & Co Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt GERMANY

Dear Dr. Ernst:

This is in reply to your letter of February 5, 1987, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. You have asked for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to a new headlamp manufactured by Hella that BMW has installed on a new car which it introduced in the United States around April 1, 1987.

The headlamp is of the replaceable bulb type, and as you describe it consists of two additional parts: "the housing, to which the cover lens is bonded by means of a two "component adhesive", and 'the optical module, consisting of the reflector and the convex lens, joined by the lens carrier...." In your words, "The two parts are held together by three screws", and you believe that "the two parts, firmly screwed together, are as effectively joined as would be the case if bonded".

Paragraph S3 of Standard No. 108 defines a "replaceable bulb headlamp" in pertinent part as "a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly. . . ." In the Hella design, the lens and reflector assembly are not bonded, and thus the headlamp is not a "replaceable bulb headlamp" that is permissible for use on motor vehicles sold and used in the Unite States. The intent of the definition is to ensure that the headlamp lens and reflector are an integral replaceable unit, since that is the only means to assure a mechanically aimable replaceable bulb headlamp which is capable of using any replacement standardized replaceable light source and meets the necessary photometric performance. The foundation of mechanical aimability is that the beam and aiming pads are manufactured to have a specific relationship. If this relationship is altered by replacement of the lens only, or of the reflector only, there is a high likelihood that the lamp may not meet minimum performance requirements when aimed mechanically.

ID: nht87-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z.Jones; NHTSA

TO: Diane LeMire

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Diane Le Mire Traffic Administrator Equus Products, Inc. 17291-B Mt. Herrmann Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708

Dear Ms. Le Mire:

Thank you for your letter asking how our regulations would affect the manufacturing, importing, and distribution of a shade device for a vehicle. According to the sales brochure included with your letter, your product, which is called "VENTSHADES," is a stainless steel shade that is designed to be installed on the top of a vehicle's window frame. The purpose of the device is to allow vehicle occupants to partially lower their windows when it is raining and keep the rain out. In addition, the brochure sa ys that the ventshade can reduce glare. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following information is helpful.

I believe some background information about the agency may be of assistance to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Act establishes a "self-certification" process under w hich 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 other alleged safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes each of a manufacturer's responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act. The information sheet also explains how a foreign company importing an item of vehicle equipment into the United States mus t designate an agent within this country for service of process.

We do not have any standards that directly apply to your product. The agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. The performance and other requirements of the standard apply to any item of glazing material used in a vehicle, including a windscreen made of plastic or other glazing materials. Your product is not made of a glazing material, but is instead made of steel, and is thus n ot covered by Standard No. 205.

However, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In addition, use of your product can be affected b y section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(n) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency enc ourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

MAY 19, 1986

Ms. Jones Office of Chief Counsel RM #5219 NHTSA 400 7th S.W. Washington D C. 20590

Please be so kind as to forward all discloseable information pertaining to the manufacturing, importing, and distribution of VENTSHADES.

I have enclosed a copy of a sales brochure for a definition. The shade mounts to the outside of the vehicle. Please see the attached photocopy for a more complete description.

Please forward all correspondence to:

EQUUS PRODUCTS, INC. 17291-B Mt. Herrmann St. Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attn: Diana Le Mire

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely,

Diana Le Mire Traffic Administrator

ID: nht87-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: William Tackett

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William Tackett 859 South Main Plymouth, MI 48170

Dear Mr. Tackett:

This is to follow-up on your phone conversation of December 1, 1986, with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, affects the installation of trailer hitches on cars. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

Standard No. 301 sets performance requirements to reduce fuel system spillage in a crash. If a trailer hitch is installed on a new-car prior to the car being first sold to a consumer, the person installing the trailer hitch would be considered a vehicle alterer under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a copy of which is enclosed, Under Part 567.7, a vehicle alterer is required to certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable safety standards.

The installation of a trailer hitch on a used car would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides that:

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

Thus, in installing trailer hitches on a used car, a commercial business must ensure that it has not knowingly compromised the integrity of the fuel system.

In addition, a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, such as a trailer hitch, is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I hav e enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes how our defect regulations affect equipment manufacturers.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures