NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam0008

Dear Mr. Dembecki: This responds to your letter of March 1, 1991 asking for an 'evaluation' of your 'Flashing' center stop lamp. You have four prototypes: 'complete' one and two bulb units 'for l984 and older vehicles', and one and two 'electronic modules for all third safety brake light retrofits through 1991.' In your opinion, 'since the new safety brake light utilizes the existing brake light (retrofit) on a previously approved brake light assembly it is reasoned that any evaluation as to durability testing is not really needed.' We understand that your 'complete' unit for the older vehicles is a lamp. It is unclear whether the 'electronic module' intended for retrofit for newer vehicles is a separate lamp, or a device to be inserted into an existing lamp. However, the issue that your invention presents is not whether further testing of it is required, but whether it is permitted at all under applicable Federal statutes and regulations. We note that you would like to market it both for installation in passenger cars that already have a center lamp, and in those that do not. In short, you intend to sell the lamp/module in the aftermarket for installation on vehicles in use, rather than as original equipment installed by the manufacturer. Center highmounted stop lamps have been required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985 (effectively the l986 model year). You indicate that your lamp flashes momentarily when the brake pedal is applied and thereafter the lamp is steady-burning. Standard No. 108 initially allowed the center lamp to be wired so as to flash with the turn signals but, since September 1, l986, has required the center lamp to be steady-burning at all times when in use. Because your invention is not steady-burning at all times, and is activated by the brake pedal and not the turn signal control, the sale or installation of the invention may be prohibited by Federal law. If this invention is a lamp, it is not a center lamp that conforms to either the initial or current requirements of Standard No. 108 for center lamps. If, on the other hand, it is a module intended for insertion into an existing lamp, its sale or installation could violate existing Federal requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids the sale of equipment that does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If your invention is sold as a lamp, and intended to replace original equipment center lamps on l986 and subsequent model year cars, its sale would be in violation of the Act. On the other hand, there is no similar prohibition on sale of componentry such as an electronic module that would create a noncompliance once installed. However, there is a prohibition on the installation of such componentry (as well as installation of the invention in lamp form on l986 and subsequent model year cars). The Act forbids a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any equipment on a vehicle which has been installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal safety standard. With respect to l985 model and older cars, which Standard No. 108 did not require to be equipped with center lamps, sale of your lamp exclusively for use on these older vehicles would not violate the Act. However, its installation remains subject to the rendering inoperative prohibition discussed above. There are other Federal standards involving equipment to consider. For example, we would be concerned if your lamp interfered with the field of view of the interior rear view mirror, and if its installation would affect the wiring of the other stop lamps so as to interfere with their design performance. However, there should be no problem with the field of view requirements if the lamp size is comparable to the required center lamps. Once you have satisfied these concerns under Federal law, use of the lamp remains subject to the laws of the individual States in which it is used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4848

Dear Mr. Dembecki: This responds to your letter of March 1, 1991 asking for an 'evaluation' of your 'Flashing' center stop lamp. You have four prototypes: 'complete' one and two bulb units 'for l984 and older vehicles', and one and two 'electronic modules for all third safety brake light retrofits through 1991.' In your opinion, 'since the new safety brake light utilizes the existing brake light (retrofit) on a previously approved brake light assembly it is reasoned that any evaluation as to durability testing is not really needed.' We understand that your 'complete' unit for the older vehicles is a lamp. It is unclear whether the 'electronic module' intended for retrofit for newer vehicles is a separate lamp, or a device to be inserted into an existing lamp. However, the issue that your invention presents is not whether further testing of it is required, but whether it is permitted at all under applicable Federal statutes and regulations. We note that you would like to market it both for installation in passenger cars that already have a center lamp, and in those that do not. In short, you intend to sell the lamp/module in the aftermarket for installation on vehicles in use, rather than as original equipment installed by the manufacturer. Center highmounted stop lamps have been required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985 (effectively the l986 model year). You indicate that your lamp flashes momentarily when the brake pedal is applied and thereafter the lamp is steady-burning. Standard No. 108 initially allowed the center lamp to be wired so as to flash with the turn signals but, since September 1, l986, has required the center lamp to be steady-burning at all times when in use. Because your invention is not steady-burning at all times, and is activated by the brake pedal and not the turn signal control, the sale or installation of the invention may be prohibited by Federal law. If this invention is a lamp, it is not a center lamp that conforms to either the initial or current requirements of Standard No. 108 for center lamps. If, on the other hand, it is a module intended for insertion into an existing lamp, its sale or installation could violate existing Federal requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids the sale of equipment that does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If your invention is sold as a lamp, and intended to replace original equipment center lamps on l986 and subsequent model year cars, its sale would be in violation of the Act. On the other hand, there is no similar prohibition on sale of componentry such as an electronic module that would create a noncompliance once installed. However, there is a prohibition on the installation of such componentry (as well as installation of the invention in lamp form on l986 and subsequent model year cars). The Act forbids a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any equipment on a vehicle which has been installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal safety standard. With respect to l985 model and older cars, which Standard No. 108 did not require to be equipped with center lamps, sale of your lamp exclusively for use on these older vehicles would not violate the Act. However, its installation remains subject to the rendering inoperative prohibition discussed above. There are other Federal standards involving equipment to consider. For example, we would be concerned if your lamp interfered with the field of view of the interior rear view mirror, and if its installation would affect the wiring of the other stop lamps so as to interfere with their design performance. However, there should be no problem with the field of view requirements if the lamp size is comparable to the required center lamps. Once you have satisfied these concerns under Federal law, use of the lamp remains subject to the laws of the individual States in which it is used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4863

Dear Mr. Dembecki: This responds to your letter of March 1, 1991 asking for an 'evaluation' of your 'Flashing' center stop lamp. You have four prototypes: 'complete' one and two bulb units 'for l984 and older vehicles', and one and two 'electronic modules for all third safety brake light retrofits through 1991.' In your opinion, 'since the new safety brake light utilizes the existing brake light (retrofit) on a previously approved brake light assembly it is reasoned that any evaluation as to durability testing is not really needed.' We understand that your 'complete' unit for the older vehicles is a lamp. It is unclear whether the 'electronic module' intended for retrofit for newer vehicles is a separate lamp, or a device to be inserted into an existing lamp. However, the issue that your invention presents is not whether further testing of it is required, but whether it is permitted at all under applicable Federal statutes and regulations. We note that you would like to market it both for installation in passenger cars that already have a center lamp, and in those that do not. In short, you intend to sell the lamp/module in the aftermarket for installation on vehicles in use, rather than as original equipment installed by the manufacturer. Center highmounted stop lamps have been required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985 (effectively the l986 model year). You indicate that your lamp flashes momentarily when the brake pedal is applied and thereafter the lamp is steady-burning. Standard No. 108 initially allowed the center lamp to be wired so as to flash with the turn signals but, since September 1, l986, has required the center lamp to be steady-burning at all times when in use. Because your invention is not steady-burning at all times, and is activated by the brake pedal and not the turn signal control, the sale or installation of the invention may be prohibited by Federal law. If this invention is a lamp, it is not a center lamp that conforms to either the initial or current requirements of Standard No. 108 for center lamps. If, on the other hand, it is a module intended for insertion into an existing lamp, its sale or installation could violate existing Federal requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids the sale of equipment that does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If your invention is sold as a lamp, and intended to replace original equipment center lamps on l986 and subsequent model year cars, its sale would be in violation of the Act. On the other hand, there is no similar prohibition on sale of componentry such as an electronic module that would create a noncompliance once installed. However, there is a prohibition on the installation of such componentry (as well as installation of the invention in lamp form on l986 and subsequent model year cars). The Act forbids a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any equipment on a vehicle which has been installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal safety standard. With respect to l985 model and older cars, which Standard No. 108 did not require to be equipped with center lamps, sale of your lamp exclusively for use on these older vehicles would not violate the Act. However, its installation remains subject to the rendering inoperative prohibition discussed above. There are other Federal standards involving equipment to consider. For example, we would be concerned if your lamp interfered with the field of view of the interior rear view mirror, and if its installation would affect the wiring of the other stop lamps so as to interfere with their design performance. However, there should be no problem with the field of view requirements if the lamp size is comparable to the required center lamps. Once you have satisfied these concerns under Federal law, use of the lamp remains subject to the laws of the individual States in which it is used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: nht95-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 4, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Forbes Howard -- Goodlife Motors Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 6/2/94 from Forbes Howard to John Womack (OCC 10074)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Howard:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the "super golf car" your company is developing is a motor vehicle subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). As explained below, since your golf car does not have an unusua l configuration and is designed to attain speeds in excess of 20 miles per hour for use on the public roads, we would consider your golf car to be a motor vehicle.

In your letter to us, you stated that your company's super golf cars "will have a top speed of 29 miles per hour." You enclosed three photographs, each of "one model of our vehicles." One photograph shows a man sitting in the driver's seat. The size of t he man in relation to the golf car makes it appear that the golf car is somewhat smaller than compact passenger cars.

The styling of your golf car is not unlike that of the prototype Volkswagen Concept 1 car, unveiled by Volkswagen at the January 1994 Detroit Auto Show. (Automotive News article with photograph of car enclosed.) Unlike conventional golf carts with straig ht sides, the sides of your golf cars are curved, resembling passenger cars. The photographs of all three golf cars show a raked windshield, with a single windshield wiper, front headlights, two seats, and four wheels. At least one outside rearview mir ror is shown on each golf car. Two golf cars have side doors. The third has no doors. Two golf cars have no roof or other overhead cover. The third includes what appears to be a removable top, similar to that on a convertible automobile.

Based on conversations between you and Dorothy Nakama of my staff, it appears that you expect that purchasers would use your "super golf cars" to travel regularly on the public roads. In this connection, we note that you mentioned that Arizona has regis tered more than 23,000 golf carts for on-road use. Arizona officials have informed us that these golf carts must have motorcycle license plates.

The FMVSS apply to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(6). "Motor vehicle" is defined at section 30102(a)(6) as:

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

In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has stated that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles and have a maxi mum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less.

Applying these criteria to your products, we note that the "super golf cars" do not have an unusual configuration, making them readily distinguishable from other motor vehicles on the road. The styling and features of your "super golf cars" make them re semble the prototype Volkswagen passenger car. Although the golf cars may be smaller than passenger cars, we cannot say that the golf cars are significantly smaller.

Further, while the weight of your vehicles (1,100 lbs. for the electric "super golf car" and 950 lbs. for the gas powered "super golf cars") is less than that of most, if not all, current passenger cars, low weight alone is insufficient to prevent a vehi cle from being regarded as a "motor vehicle." At one time, NHTSA excluded small motor vehicles, i.e., those whose curb weight was 1,000 lbs. or less, from the application of our safety standards. However, that exclusion was rescinded in a final rule pub lished May 16, 1973 (38 FR 12808) (copy enclosed).

Moreover, you have stated your golf cars can attain a maximum speed of 29 miles per hour (mph). Twenty nine mph significantly exceeds 20 mph, the maximum speed at which NHTSA has stated that a vehicle designed to travel on the public roads would not be considered a "motor vehicle." Twenty nine mph is also almost the same speed (30 mph) specified for some compliance testing of passenger cars for such FMVSS as Standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity and Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.

For these reasons, we conclude that the "super golf car" as described above is a "motor vehicle" subject to all applicable FMVSS.

As a manufacturer of a motor vehicle, you have several options. One is, of course, to comply with the current safety standards. Another is to petition the agency to amend the current standards so as to accommodate any special compliance problems that a small car might experience. In the 1973 final rule terminating the exclusion of lightweight vehicles, NHTSA stated that a manufacturer has the option of petitioning for amendment of any standard it feels is impracticable or inappropriate for lightweigh t vehicles. Finally, you may have the option of petitioning for temporary exemption from one or more standards upon one of the bases provided in 49 U.S.C. 30113 General exemptions. The petitioning procedure is described in NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR part 555 Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You should understand that exemptions are primarily granted as an interim measure to give small manufacturers a chance to come into compliance. You should also understand that exemptions are typically given for only a select number of the standards applicable to an exempted vehicle. Across-the-board exemptions from all standards have not been granted.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/25/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: HARRY REID -- UNITED STATES SENATE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/08/89 FROM PATRICIA KLINGER WATHEN -- DOT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE; LETTER DATED 02/23/89 FROM HARRY REID -- SENATE TO DOT; LETTER DATED 02/03/89 FROM STEVEN P. ELLIOTT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE, RE AUTHORIZATION TO DISCONNECT AUTO MOBILE AIR BAGS; REPORT FROM DAVID J. ROMEO AND JOHN B. MORRIS, DRIVER AIR BAG POLICE FLEET DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM A 24 MONTH PROGRESS REPORT AT EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLE CONFERENCE OXFORD, ENGLAND, JULY 1-5, 1985; RESEARCH NOTES ON, CRASH EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED AIR BAG VEHICLES THROUGH 03/31/89, FROM VERNON ROBERTS

TEXT: Dear Senator Reid:

Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation, on behalf of the City of Sparks, Nevada. That city's police department has received six new patrol cars equipped with air bags. According to the City Attorney for Sparks, the city police ca rs are often required to push disabled vehicles out of travel lanes of highways and the police officers are afraid that the air bags will be activated during these pushing operations. You asked if the Department of Transportation would authorize the Spa rks police department to disconnect the air bags on its patrol cars. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires all 1990 model year cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection, and specified percentages of each manufacturer's 1987, 1988, and 1989 model year cars to be so equipped. Chrysler, the manufacturer of the patrol cars in question, has chosen to comply with the requirement for automatic crash protection by installing air bags in these police cars.

When a safety standard like Standard No. 208 is in effect and applicable to new passenger cars, the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale, importing, or introducing in interstate commerce any new car that does n ot comply with the safety standard. However, the Safety Act provides that these prohibitions do not apply after the first purchase of the car "in good faith for purposes other than resale." Hence, the Federal requirement that the cars comply with all ap plicable safety standards ceased to apply when the Sparks city police department purchased these cars, since the police department bought these cars in good faith to use them as police patrol cars, not to resell them.

After the first purchase of a car in good faith for purposes other than resale, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in the car in compli ance with an applicable safety standard. Obviously, disconnecting air bag systems would have that effect. Accordingly, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from disconnecting the air bag systems on the Sparks poli ce department cars.

Please note that the Safety Act does not prohibit individual vehicle owners from rendering inoperative safety features on their own vehicles. Hence, the City of Sparks does not need any sort of "authorization" from this agency to disconnect the air bag systems on the city's police cars. The City of Sparks is permitted to disconnect the air bags on its own vehicles without violating any Federal law, just as any resident of Sparks can remove any safety equipment they like from their own vehicles without violating Federal law. Such removals may, however, violate the laws of the State of Nevada.

I recommend that the city carefully consider the effects of disconnecting the air bag systems in its police cars, even though Federal law does not prohibit the city from doing so. The air bags in those cars are an effective means of protecting vehicle o ccupants in frontal crashes. As to the possibility of inadvertent deployment of air bags in police cars, I note that the agency has entered into a contract under which police cars have been retrofitted with air bag systems, without a single reported ins tance of an air bag detonation while pushing a disabled vehicle. Enclosed is a report with some additional information on this contract. Particularly since the City of Sparks police officers face the possibility of becoming involved in high speed pursu it situations, we believe those police officers deserve the benefits of automatic crash protection in their police cars.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: aiam3751

Dear Mr. Wong: This responds to your letter to this office asking for information o regulations applicable to the importation of new tires, retreaded tires, and used tires casings from Japan into this country. It is not clear from your letter whether you are interested in importing passenger car tires or tires for use on other motor vehicles. To ensure that you get the information of concern to you, I will discuss the three situations you asked about for both passenger car tires and tires for use on other motor vehicles.; Generally speaking, all tiers which are subject to a Federal moto vehicle safety standard must have the symbol 'DOT' molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer or retreader, if those tires are to be imported into the United States. This symbol represents a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire complies with all requirements of the applicable safety standard. The importation of any tire without the DOT certification symbol on the sidewall would be a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), and the importer would be subject to a civil penalty of $1000 for each tire he imported without a DOT symbol on the sidewall.; *New passenger car tires*. Section S4.3.1 of Safety Standard No. 10 (49 CFR S571.109) (copy enclosed) requires that all new passenger car tires have the DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer. Tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country.; *New tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars* Section S6.5(a) of Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S571.119) (copy enclosed) requires that all new tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars have the DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer. Tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country.; *Retreaded passenger car tires*. Section S6.1 of Standard No. 117 (4 CFR S571.117) (copy enclosed) requires that all retreaded passenger car tires have the symbol DOT molded into the sidewall by the retreader. Retreaded passenger car tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country.; *Retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars* No Federal safety standard is applicable to these tires. They may be imported without certification of compliance by the retreader. However, these tires must have a tire identification number marked on the sidewall, per the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574 (copy enclosed), if they are to be legally sold in the United States. It would be a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(E) to sell tires without an identification number.; *Used passenger car tires*. 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) reads in part a follows: 'No person shall...import into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title, unless it is in conformity with such standard...' The effect of this language is to require that passenger car tires manufactured on or after the date Standard No. 109 took effect (January 1, 1968) be certified as complying with that standard, whether the tire is now new or used. To be legally imported into the United States, used passenger car tires must either have a DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the original manufacturer or be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured before January 1, 1968.; *Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars*. Th same reasoning applied above in the case of used passenger car tires applies to these tires as well. Standard No. 119 took effect on March 1, 1975, so used tires to be imported into the United States must either have a DOT symbol on the sidewall or proof that they were manufactured before March 1, 1975.; Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars whic have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining and which are imported solely for the purpose of being retreaded in this country prior to resale may be imported without a DOT symbol on the sidewall. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield, which explains in detail the requirements of this narrow exception to the requirement that used tires have a DOT symbol on the sidewall to be legally imported.; You also asked for any other information which your supplier might nee to export tires to the United States. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. Yang Ru-tang, which sets forth the requirements which must be satisfied in order for a foreign manufacturer to export tires to this country.; If you need any further information on this subject, please feel fre to contact me.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 10074yes

Mr. Forbes Howard
Goodlife Motors Corporation
Route 3, Box 250-5
Boone, North Carolina 28607

Dear Mr. Howard:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the "super golf car" your company is developing is a motor vehicle subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). As explained below, since your golf car does not have an unusual configuration and is designed to attain speeds in excess of 20 miles per hour for use on the public roads, we would consider your golf car to be a motor vehicle.

In your letter to us, you stated that your company's super golf cars "will have a top speed of 29 miles per hour." You enclosed three photographs, each of "one model of our vehicles." One photograph shows a man sitting in the driver's seat. The size of the man in relation to the golf car makes it appear that the golf car is somewhat smaller than compact passenger cars.

The styling of your golf car is not unlike that of the prototype Volkswagen Concept 1 car, unveiled by Volkswagen at the January 1994 Detroit Auto Show. (Automotive News article with photograph of car enclosed.) Unlike conventional golf carts with straight sides, the sides of your golf cars are curved, resembling passenger cars. The photographs of all three golf cars show a raked windshield, with a single windshield wiper, front headlights, two seats, and four wheels. At least one outside rearview mirror is shown on each golf car. Two golf cars have side doors. The third has no doors. Two golf cars have no roof or other overhead cover. The third includes what appears to be a removable top, similar to that on a convertible automobile.

Based on conversations between you and Dorothy Nakama of my staff, it appears that you expect that purchasers would use your "super golf cars" to travel regularly on the public roads. In this connection, we note that you mentioned that Arizona has registered more than 23,000 golf carts for on-road use. Arizona officials have informed us that these golf carts must have motorcycle license plates.

The FMVSS apply to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. '30102(a)(6). "Motor vehicle" is defined at section 30102(a)(6) as:

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

In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has stated that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles and have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less.

Applying these criteria to your products, we note that the "super golf cars" do not have an unusual configuration, making them readily distinguishable from other motor vehicles on the road. The styling and features of your "super golf cars" make them resemble the prototype Volkswagen passenger car. Although the golf cars may be smaller than passenger cars, we cannot say that the golf cars are significantly smaller.

Further, while the weight of your vehicles (1,100 lbs. for the electric "super golf car" and 950 lbs. for the gas powered "super golf car") is less than that of most, if not all, current passenger cars, low weight alone is insufficient to prevent a vehicle from being regarded as a "motor vehicle." At one time, NHTSA excluded small motor vehicles, i.e., those whose curb weight was 1,000 lbs. or less, from the application of our safety standards. However, that exclusion was rescinded in a final rule published May 16, 1973 (38 FR 12808)(copy enclosed).

Moreover, you have stated your golf cars can attain a maximum speed of 29 miles per hour (mph). Twenty nine mph significantly exceeds 20 mph, the maximum speed at which NHTSA has stated that a vehicle designed to travel on the public roads would not be considered a "motor vehicle." Twenty nine mph is also almost the same speed (30 mph) specified for some compliance testing of passenger cars for such FMVSS as Standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity and Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.

For these reasons, we conclude that the "super golf car" as described above is a "motor vehicle" subject to all applicable FMVSS.

As a manufacturer of a motor vehicle, you have several options. One is, of course, to comply with the current safety standards. Another is to petition the agency to amend the current standards so as to accommodate any special compliance problems that a small car might experience. In the 1973 finalrule terminating the exclusion of lightweight vehicles, NHTSA stated that a manufacturer has the option of petitioning for amendment of any standard it feels is impracticable or inappropriate for lightweight vehicles. Finally, you may have the option of petitioning for temporary exemption from one or more standards upon one of the bases provided in 49 U.S.C. 30113 General exemptions. The petitioning procedure is described in NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR part 555 Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You should understand that exemptions are primarily granted as an interim measure to give small manufacturers a chance to come into compliance. You should also understand that exemptions are typically given for only a select number of the standards applicable to an exempted vehicle. Across-the-board exemptions from all standards have not been granted.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA d:1/4/95

ID: nht91-7.5

DATE: November 11, 1991

FROM: Richard Gray -- Secretary, Sports Car Club of New Zealand, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/23/92 from Paul Jackson Rice (by Stephen P. Wood) to Richard Gray (A39; VSA S108(a)(1)(A))

TEXT:

I am writing to in the hope that your Department may be able to assist our Organization in overcoming a couple of vehicle standards problems. The New Zealand Ministry of Transport is introducing new Vehicle Safety Standards similar to those in operation in the USA, United Kingdom, Europe and Australia. Their main thrust is to align the NZ Vehicle Standards with those of USA, Europe and UK. In doing so the cars built by the major manufacturers will require the local importers to ensure that the vehicles they import or assemble locally meet the Vehicle Standards of any of the above named countries.

However, certification of Low volume vehicles (those built in numbers less than 20O per year) is being entrusted to four organizations of which the Sports Car Club of New Zealand is playing a key role in helping to set up the certification system for all low volume vehicles including modified cars.

With the introduction of the Standards we are faced with two major problem areas; glazing and seat-belts. New Zealand has a number of privately imported American built sports cars such as the Montage, GT40, replicas, Cobra replicas, and Cheetahs to name just a few, which are facing the prospect of being legislated off our roads.

GLAZING:

The problem is that many of these cars are fitted with acrylic or polycarbonate side and/or rear glazing. The N.Z. Ministry of Transport is saying that unless we can provide proof from the relevant authorities that such glazing is permissible for use in Low Volume vehicles respective countries of origin, then they will have to have moulds made and new safety glass screens manufactured for fitment. This ruling will apply retrospectively back to 1976.

The cost of such an exercise would be prohibitive and would result in most of these cars being put off the road for good. The introduction of such a regulation would also rule out the possibility of any further low volume cars from being imported into NZ should they also be fitted with such glazing.

The fact that such cars were sold in their countries of origin with acrylic or polycarbonate screens does not help our case. The MOT say that we have no proof that the manufacturers of these cars actually complied with the regulations of their country, or that their countries of origin have any special exemptions in place for low volume vehicles.

To overcome this problem the NZ MOT require us to provide proof from the appropriate authorities in USA and UK to this effect.

A prompt reply from your Department is a matter of urgency as the introduction of the N.Z. Standards governing alternative glazing materials is set for January 1992.

Could you please reply stating if such materials are permissible, and if so, what types are allowed for use (e.g. acrylic, polycarbonate, abrasion resistant films etc), and under what circumstances, placement or conditions they are permitted.

FULL HARNESS SEATBELTS:

The fitment of 3-point dual sensitive seatbelts to the outboard front seating positions on new cars has been mandatory for some time in NZ, but there has been nothing stopping people from fitting full harness seatbelts if they so desired. However, the NZ MOT are about to stop this practice and in fact retrospectively apply the new ruling.

We believe that any person should be allowed to take extra safety precautions to protect themselves over and above those standards set down by the authorities, provided they do not endanger other people. in this regard we have noticed that quite a number of Low Volume American built sports cars come fitted with full harness seatbelts.

Again it would greatly help our case if we could have the official ruling on the provisions for fitment and use of full harness seatbelts in America.

FRONT NUMBER PLATES:

This problem is not quite so urgent, but the NZ MOT have recently decided not to allow the fitment of flexible registration plates to the front of vehicles. This is creating quite a problem with cars such as E type Jaguars, Cobra Replicas and even modern production sports cars like the MX5 to name just a few. The shape of their nose section does not allow for the fitment of rigid metal plates without them either interfering with radiator cooling or becoming a dangerous protrusion.

It would appear that the American regulations allow for the fitment of either alternative flexible registration plates, or none at all. If this is so, a copy of your registrations governing their fitment would be most helpful.

In anticipation of an early reply, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your time and assistance.

ID: 1985-04.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. -- Arent, Fox, Kintner, Platkin and Kahn

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn Washington Square 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5339

Thank you for your letter of September 16, 1985, concerning the applicability of the requirement in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for the installation of center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSL's) to passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. You also asked about the applicability of the CHMSL performance requirements to CHMSL's sold as aftermarket equipment for cars manufactured before that date. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

You are correct in stating that there is no requirement in Standard No. 108 for installing CHMSL's on new cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. The installation requirement applies only to cars manufactured on or after that date. (48 FR 48235, October 13, 1984.) The only requirements regarding CHMSL's and pre-September 1, 1985 cars are that if a manufacturer voluntarily installs a CHMSL on a car manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, and before September 1, 1985, the installation must be performed in accordance with criteria concerning the location of the CHMSL, and reflections from it. (49 FR 34488, August 31, 1984.)

As to aftermarket CHMSL's for cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, the applicability depends on whether or not the CHMSL is intended to be installed as a replacement for an original equipment CHMSL that was voluntarily installed on a car that was manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, but before September 1, 1985. If the aftermarket CHMSL is intended to be installed in the interior of such a car, then the manufacturer of the CHMSL must comply with the requirement in S3.1.8.4 concerning minimization of reflections. If the CHMSL is intended to be installed on other pre-September 1, 1985 cars, its manufacturer is not subject to any Standard No. 108 requirements for CHMSL's. However, the agency encourages manufacturers of any aftermarket CHMSL to conform as closely as possible to all criteria in the standard for original equipment CHMSL's. We believe that standardization of rear signals minimizes the possibility of creating confusion to following drivers in situations where immediate action is essential to avoid a rear end collision. Further, aftermarket CHMSL's for those other pre-September 1, 1985 cars would be regulated by the applicable law of the State in which they are operated.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel (202) 857-6087

September 16, 1985 Jeffrey R. Miller, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Request for Interpretation; FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Miller:

As we discussed by telephone, I am requesting that you confirm that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, as it relates to the requirement for installation of a single center, high-mounted stoplamp on passenger cars, does not apply to passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 1985, and therefore does not apply to aftermarket center high-mounted stoplamps produced for applications on passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 1985.

An expedited response will be very much appreciated.

Sincerely, Lawrence F. Henneberger

ID: nht80-3.45

DATE: 09/10/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Terry M. Bennett

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 12, 1980, concerning your importation of three passenger cars that do not comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You sought to import these vehicles under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii) but Customs required you to enter them under bond, pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(iii) which requires that they be brought into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked to be allowed to enter these cars under 12.80(b)(1)(vii). According to your letter, you are a collector of cars which are in storage, residing and working at present in Saudi Arabia, keep three registered cars in the U.S. for the use of you and your wife while you are here, and state that you never drive the cars in your collection.

Section 12.80(b)(1)(vii) allows importation of a vehicle without conformance if it is brought in for purposes of show, test, experiment, competition, repairs, or alteration. I see nothing in your letter indicating eligibility for importation under any of these allowances. Certainly the vehicles have not been imported for purposes of "show" which we interpret as available for inspection by the public as part of a static display. Accordingly, we are unable to grant your request.

(Illegible Word) the interest of accuracy, you should know that our records, (Illegible Word) by the manufacturer, indicate that the "1968" BMW (Illegible Word) CS coupe you say was "sold to me as 1967" was, in fact, the last of that model manufactured in the month of June 1969.

SINCERELY,

AUGUST 12, 1980

Chief Counsel's office National Highway Safety (Traffic Safety) DOT

Dear Sir:

Pursuant to a conversation with Mr. George (Illegible Word) of your department I am writing to you to request a review of my situation vis a vis 3 recently imported non conforming automobiles.

The vehicles in question are:

1) 1968 BMW 2000 CS Coupe serial # 1109557 (sold to me as 1967 in South: Arabia) 2) 1975 Fewari 365BB Coupe serial # F102BB18197

3) 1975 Lamberghini Contach coupe serial # 112-0088

These vehicles were imported under U.S. customs file # ENF 4-05 NF RS through the port of Newark.

Customs, at Newark, forced my representative to change the import form category from category 7 to category 3. Stating that I was not a "registered (Illegible Word)".

I am a certifiable "carnut", and have collected cars since I was a small boy. I own more than 35 cars, many of which are stared in the facility in Gloucester (photo enclosed) my cars are mostly old, beginning with a 1905 (Illegible Word) Belleville. I keep 3 cars registered for the use of my wife and myself while we are in the USA on holiday, and certainly have no need to use a noncomforming car at any time.

I would very much appreciate it, if you would review this situation and allow me to exchange the entry status of these 3 cars to category 7.

I have posted a bond against use on the highway, in nonconforming status, I am willing to live with that.

Further, I am perfectly willing for your inspectors to drop in at any (Illegible Word) moment and inspect these vehicles to assure themselves that they are not being operated.

As I said I reside and work in Saud: Arabia. I am seldom here, never drive these cars, and fully intend to abide by the letter of the law.

Please allow me to change their status. I am faced with $ 30,000 in expenses to have (Illegible Words) only to sit in the same garage until I return at some unknown time in the future.

I will be in the USA until Aug 30, on holiday. Could you try to reach a decision by then and let me know? Thank you. Help!

Terry M. Bennett M.D

[GRAPHICS OMITTED]