ID: 1982-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/25/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United Sidecar Association, Inc. -- H. A. Kendall

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

H. A. Kendall, Ph.D. United Sidecar Association, Inc. 1621 Palomino Lane Kingwood, Texas 77339

This is in reply to your letter of February 20, 1982, with respect to pulsating headlamps.

You have interpreted my letter of February 9, 1982 as stating that "for daytime operation of a motorcycle headlight, the light may be permitted to pulsate or modulate from one level of brightness to another." On the contrary, I stated that "a lamp whose intensity varies from a higher output to a lower output...would be prohibited." However, I also said that, if complete deactivation occurs (i.e., from a higher output to no output), then that mode of operation is permissible.

With respect to your latest letter and the problems of headlighting in older motorcycles, there would be no need to have the smaller bulb illuminated, and the "definite on/off/on/off sequence" you mention is sufficient for compliance with Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 20, 1982

Dear Mr Berndt:

My interpretation of your response of February 9, 1982 is that, for daytime operation of a motorcycle headlight, the light may be permitted to pulsate or modulate from one level of brightness to another.

Many of the older motorcycles with only marginal charging systems simply cannot cope with continuous lights on operation without frequent battery charging, externally, or without operating the engine at a very high speed in lower gears to keep the battery charged. However, almost all of the earlier machines have a nonsealed beam headlight containing a minor running (or parking) light in addition to the main twin filament.

As far as NHTSA is concerned, it would appear that as long as the smaller bulb was left on at all times (to provide the lower light output) that the main beam could be operated at some fractionally lower duty cycle, say, about 25%, at say 1.5 to 4 Hz, and still comply with NHTSA's ruling. If this is so, then it would be possible to allow older motorcycles to operate with a relatively simple inexpensive mechanical device to reduce headlight daytime consumption instead of using the very expensive solid state circuitry now available.

The main headlight would have a definite on/off/on/off sequence, however, the small continuous light would prevent the lamp from being extinguished at any time.

Please advise a ruling on this type of device for motorcycle headlights for daytime operation only.

Sincerely,

H. A. Kendall, Ph.D.

HAK/lk

ID: nht95-5.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 22, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David T. Zelis -- Marketing Manager, Buyers Products Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/13/95 letter from David T. Zelis to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 13, 1995, forwarding literature concerning The Pintle Mount Bumper, which you describe as a new product being offered by your company that is designed to take the place of a vehicle bumper and the receiv er tube assembly on a light duty truck. In a telephone conversation with Coleman Sachs of my staff on November 22, 1995, you described this bumper as an aftermarket product that will not be supplied as original equipment on new motor vehicles. You have requested copies of any standards issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that may apply to the use or manufacture of this product.

NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards, found at 49 CFR Part 571, and a Bumper Standard, found at 49 CFR Part 581. None of these standards apply to the product that is the subject of your inquiry.

The Bumper Standard applies only to vehicles and not to bumpers sold as items of replacement equipment. Moreover, as stated in 49 CFR 581.3, the only vehicles to which the Bumper Standard applies are "passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose pas senger vehicles." The term "passenger motor vehicle" is defined for purposes of the Bumper Standard at 49 U.S.C. @ 32101 (10) as

a motor vehicle with motive power designed to carry not more than 12 individuals, but does not include- (A) a motorcycle; or (B) a truck not designed primarily to carry its operator or passengers.

Because the light duty pickup trucks for which your product is designed do not fall within this definition, the Bumper Standard does not apply to those vehicles.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) apply only to new motor vehicles and items of replacement equipment. Because your bumper is only being sold as aftermarket equipment, it could not affect the compliance of new motor vehicles with the FM VSS. Moreover, there are no FMVSS that would apply to your bumper as a replacement equipment item.

Under 49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b), a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business is prohibited from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . ." This provision would be violated if any of the entities to which it refers installed your bumper on a vehicle and, as a result of that installation, the vehicle no longer complied with any applicable FMVSS. For example, the installation of an aftermarket bumper could affect a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, if the bumper obscured any lights or other equipment required by the standard.

Because your bumper is sold as "an addition to a motor vehicle," it meets the definition of "motor vehicle equipment" in 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(7)(c). As the manufacturer of such equipment, you are responsible under 49 U.S.C. @ 30118 for furnishing NHTSA and anyone purchasing your bumper with notification of, and a remedy for, any defect relating to motor vehicle safety that is determined to exist in the bumper.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht95-7.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 22, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David T. Zelis -- Marketing Manager, Buyers Products Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/13/95 letter from David T. Zelis to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 13, 1995, forwarding literature concerning The Pintle Mount Bumper, which you describe as a new product being offered by your company that is designed to take the place of a vehicle bumper and the receiver tube assembly on a light duty truck. In a telephone conversation with Coleman Sachs of my staff on November 22, 1995, you described this bumper as an aftermarket product that will not be supplied as original equipment on new motor vehicles. You have requested copies of any standards issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that may apply to the use or manufacture of this product.

NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards, found at 49 CFR Part 571, and a Bumper Standard, found at 49 CFR Part 581. None of these standards apply to the product that is the subject of your inquiry.

The Bumper Standard applies only to vehicles and not to bumpers sold as items of replacement equipment. Moreover, as stated in 49 CFR 581.3, the only vehicles to which the Bumper Standard applies are "passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles." The term "passenger motor vehicle" is defined for purposes of the Bumper Standard at 49 U.S.C. @ 32101 (10) as

a motor vehicle with motive power designed to carry not more than 12 individuals, but does not include- (A) a motorcycle; or (B) a truck not designed primarily to carry its operator or passengers.

Because the light duty pickup trucks for which your product is designed do not fall within this definition, the Bumper Standard does not apply to those vehicles.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) apply only to new motor vehicles and items of replacement equipment. Because your bumper is only being sold as aftermarket equipment, it could not affect the compliance of new motor vehicles with the FMVSS. Moreover, there are no FMVSS that would apply to your bumper as a replacement equipment item.

Under 49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b), a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business is prohibited from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . ." This provision would be violated if any of the entities to which it refers installed your bumper on a vehicle and, as a result of that installation, the vehicle no longer complied with any applicable FMVSS. For example, the installation of an aftermarket bumper could affect a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, if the bumper obscured any lights or other equipment required by the standard.

Because your bumper is sold as "an addition to a motor vehicle," it meets the definition of "motor vehicle equipment" in 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(7)(c). As the manufacturer of such equipment, you are responsible under 49 U.S.C. @ 30118 for furnishing NHTSA and anyone purchasing your bumper with notification of, and a remedy for, any defect relating to motor vehicle safety that is determined to exist in the bumper.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: tractor23131

Mr. Mark Ireland
Senior Engineer - Engineering Standards and Legislation
JCB Research
Rocester Saffordshire
England ST 1 4 5JP





Dear Mr. Ireland:

This responds to your letter received on May 18, 2001, asking for information about the application of glazing marking requirements to a range of construction, industrial and agricultural equipment. More specifically, you ask whether you should use "uniform/zone Toughened or Laminated glazing in the windshield and other cab areas in your machines and, also, whether glazing requirements change with the design speed of the machine." The following generally discusses:1) the applicability of our laws to your machines, and 2) glazing requirements based on the facts set forth in your letter. However, without specific information on a particular machine, we cannot provide an opinion as to whether our glazing standard is applicable to a particular machine as a "motor vehicle."

Motor Vehicle

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) issues and enforces the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. 49 USC' 30102(a)(6).

Whether NHTSA considers various pieces of construction, industrial or agricultural equipment to be motor vehicles depends on their use. In the past, we have concluded that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-road use of the equipment is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. Other construction vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job

sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the information provided in your letter, we do not have sufficient information about the use of the equipment to determine whether they are motor vehicles. If, however, certain equipment is used frequently on the highways, they would be considered motor vehicles and would be required to comply with all applicable FMVSSs, including that pertaining to glazing as discussed below. If you write us again with more information about a particular vehicle, we would be happy to provide an interpretation as to whether it is a motor vehicle.

FMVSS No. 205

FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), establishes performance, location, certification, and marking requirements for all glazing installed in motor vehicles. The standard incorporates by reference the requirements of Standard ANS Z26, "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," of the American National Standard Institute (Standard ANS Z26). Standard ANS Z26 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "items") and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used.

Standard ANS Z26 requires that glazing for windshields must pass a specified group of test requirements. ANS Z26 specifies that glazing materials that comply with these test requirements for windshields must be marked with AS1. To date, the only glazing materials that have been marked with AS1 have been laminated safety glass. Unless the non-laminated glazing material cited in your letter can meet the requirements for AS1 glazing and are marked AS1, they do not comply with the requirements for windshields specified in Standard ANS Z26 or FMVSS No. 205. Finally, you should also be aware that FMVSS No. 205 permits glass-plastic glazing.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:205
d.6/26/01

ID: nht90-3.96

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 12, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: M. Guy Dorleans -- Manager, Regulatory Affairs Department Division Elairage-France, Valeo

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-19-90 from G. Dorleans to P.J. Rice (OCC 503); Also attached to a study entitled Aiming Concept for Headlamps, Solution 3; Also attached to drawing (graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This is in further reply to the letter you and Monsieur Ravier sent on July 19, 1990, with respect to the acceptability of "Aiming concept for headlamps. Solution 3" under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Ms. DeMeter informed Monsieur Ravier on A ugust 8, 1990, that your request for confidentiality of the drawing enclosed had been granted. You did not make a similar request for treatment of your two-page description of Solution 3, and accordingly we are incorporating it by reference in this lett er, and it will be made a part of all public copies of this interpretation.

Section S7.7.5 of Standard No. 108 states that "When a headlamp system is installed on a motor vehicle, it shall be aimable with either an externally applied aiming device, or on-vehicle headlighting aiming devices installed by the vehicle manufacturer." Section S7.7.5.1 sets forth the requirements for external aiming, and section S7.7.5.2 those for on-vehicle aiming. Solution 3 features a lamp which has three aiming pads on the lens, for use with a mechanical aiming device in accordance with SAE requ irements. However, the lamp also has a movable reflector and various horizontal and vertical aim features that appear to be related to on-vehicle aiming. The horizontal and vertical aiming screws, while having markings of angles similar to that require d for on-vehicle aiming devices, are used exclusively in conjunction with the SAE mechanical aiming device. Therefore, we would consider Solution 3 to be a lamp system intended to be aimable by external means, as provided in section S7.7.5.1.

Since this system departs from the procedure normally used with the SAE mechanical aimers, we commend you in your intent to provide appropriate aiming instructions for such headlighting systems with the vehicles operator's manual, even though it is not r equired by Standard No. 108.

I hope that this is responsive to your question.

ID: 86-4.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/21/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: TAKESHI TANUMA -- NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/19/85 TO ERIKA Z JONES, FROM TAKESHI TANUMA, OCC-0023, RE W-139-H

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tanuma:

This responds to your letter of December 19, 1985, asking whether an antitheft device installed in all but a few cars of a particular car line would be considered "standard equipment" under Title VI of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

You describe a situation in which 99.9% of "A" model vehicles were equipped with an antitheft device in Model Year 1985. Specifically, your letter states that total sales in the United States for that model year were 101,854 vehicles. Of these, 101,758 vehicles were equipped with an antitheft device; the rest or 96 vehicles, which were shipped to Hawii, Guam, and Saipan as rental cars, were not equipped with an antitheft device. You state that you expect 99.9% of "A" model cars to be equipped with an antitheft device in Model Year 1987 and ask if, under these circumstances, the antitheft device can be considered standard equipment.

Under section 605(a) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, any manufacturer may petition this agency for an exemption from the vehicle theft prevention standard for any "line or lines of passenger motor vehicle which are equipped as standard equipment with an antitheft device" which the agency determines is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the standard. This section also defines "standard equipment" as that installed at the time the vehicle is delivered from the manufacturer and which is not an accessory or other item which the first purchaser customarily has the option to have installed.

As interpreted by this agency, "standard equipment" refers to antitheft devices that are provided without extra charge on all vehicles of a particular line which are introduced into the commerce of the United States or imported and which are not intended solely for export and exported. Since the antitheft device in your example would not be installed in all model "A" cars imported into the United States, the agency concludes that the device would not be standard equipment within the meaning of section 605.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 11, 1994

FROM: ASHPY P. LOWRIMORE -- SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/4/94 letter from Philip R. Recht to Ashpy Lowrimore (A42; Part 571.3)

TEXT: My purpose in writing you today is to inquire about regulations or laws that govern the use of buses and/or vans as it relates to the transportation of school children. More specifically, my concern has to do with my local church. We own a commercial bu s and a 15 passenger Ford van. I am attempting to determine any restrictions or requirements that must be met as it relates to these two specific vehicles with respect to the transportation of school children. Our church operates a kindergarten and aft er school care program. It is necessary from time to time for us to transport children associated with these programs.

I would like for you to furnish me with complete details as to any requirements that must be met by our church, both for the commercial bus that we own, as well as the 15 passenger van. I would like certain questions answered so that we can be real sure we are complying with all regulations. For example:

1. Can we transport children who are related with our various schools by utilizing the van?

2. Are there restrictions associated with the use of the bus in the transportation of children, young adults or senior adults?

3. If there are special restrictions, can you elaborate on the type of equipment that we must obtain in order to meet any regulations or requirements that are in place?

I think you can understand the gist of my concern and the need for information. I would appreciate any input that you can give me in this regard. I will await hearing from you.

ID: nht93-7.55

DATE: November 5, 1993

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

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

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

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

TEXT:

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

FACTS

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

DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

INTENDED USE

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

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

ANALYSIS

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

VEHICLE FEATURES

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

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

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

CUSTOMS RULING

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

Thank you very much for your assistance.

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

Enclosures

(Photos omitted.)

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

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

List of specifications. (Text omitted.)

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

ID: nht93-5.32

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 22, 1993

FROM: Richard Campfield -- President, Ultra B-O-N-D, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Marvin Shaw -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/26/93 from John Womack to Richard Campfield (A41; Std. 205)

TEXT:

Quite a few months back you had been quite helpful in sending information to me concerning regulations on Windshield Repair. It was noted that there is no Federal regulation which prohibits the use of a product or process in the repair of a windshield which has previously been installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. We have some conflicts that are occurring in the industry which we are hoping you can assist us with or direct us to the individual(s) who may aid us with this unfair dilemma.

In May of this year, a meeting was held by the National Glass Association which had formed a committee to set "Standards" for Windshield Repair. Let me first share that this committee was comprised (100%) of individuals specializing in REPLACEMENT. Parties opposing the meeting were given very short notice of its taking place and in fact our office received papers relevant to the meeting one day prior to the actual meeting. In any event, it is clear that the Windshield Repair Industry has made a cut in the replacement industry and these individuals are trying to put the favor back in their hands.

In any event, the standard they are trying to set is based on one used in Australia (not a law) and sets limitations that are unfounded and lack any justification whatsoever for these actions. I'll outline them as briefly as possible. (There are currently many repair technicians in Australia ignoring that standard.)

1) The only ones adversely affected by the Windshield Repair Industry are the individuals in the Glass Replacement Industry, and they are the ones who formed the committee. They purportedly had conducted safety tests regarding repair, but when asked for a cop of the test so as to verify or refute against Repair statistics, the same test could not be produced.

2) The Standard would prohibit any repairs in the "critical" area. This area, as defined by the committee includes a 16" area covering the driver's and passenger's visual field (50% of the windshield I would say). The wiper zone, also mentioned, is irrelevant to repairs which are done properly and performed with the correct adhesives. Also, Ultra BOND technicians give each customer a guarantee on their repair as we have for 6 years.

3) The Standard sets limitations on crack repair at 4". The reason for this was not clear. However, what our experience has revealed is that the length of the crack does not determine whether or not the repair can be performed adequately. Our investigation revealed that 80% of 18" cracks are repairable because they are clean or cleanable, and only 20% of 24" cracks are repairable, both due to the length of time the crack has existed in the windshield (dirt accumulation, and/or lamination deterioration) and which can be detected.

4) The Standard fails to recognize the importance of the resin (adhesive) properties used in repair. This is exactly what the Standard should be based on. It does not matter if a repair is 18" or 1" if a poor quality, poor bonding resin is used. If a correct procedure combined with the correct resins containing the appropriate resin properties is used, an acceptable repair can be performed, with a guarantee on the break not to spread and to pass State inspections.

5) Structural integrity is alleged by the Glass Industry as being sacrificed when a repair is performed. However, a small survey of local replacement companies indicated that replacement companies were not allowing the proper cure time on windshield replacements (a serious safety hazard). The adhesives used by Ultra BOND are 50-200% stronger (adhesive and tensile) than the adhesives currently used in replacement.

6) The standard suggests that cracks continue to expand. As indicated my survey, 98.6% of repairs performed by Ultra BOND technicians did not spread.

7) They also suggested that glass dislodgement could be caused ba a repair. The chance of a dislodgement of one layer of glass would be more likely due to a manufacturer's defect. A survey conducted of paramedics and windshield installers has confirmed this.

Opposing parties fought hard against the committee and the standard and they were trying to pass. Let me also share with you that the repair industry has had not one law suit filed against it in its 20 years plus of existence. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! It seemed as if the committee was going to have to reconsider their motion.

However, after hearing that the replacement industry suffered a 20% cut last year, the rumors have circulated that they will continue to press the standard and have allowed one Repair Distributor on the committee. We also have the understanding that they will try to sell it to the U.S. Department of Transportation and the insurance companies, who are just finally realizing the savings repair can offer them. We are angry and upset that this standard will be recognized when the only apparent reason for its existence is for the gain of the Replacement Industry's pocketbook. We fear its another example of the one with the most money wins.

In summary, we find the standard to be archaic in its structure and the committee prejudicial (the issue unnecessary). If you have any recommendations on how we might prevent the damage this standard will cause, to not only Ultra BOND but to the over 760 existing customers we have, as well as the thousands of other individuals who earn their living repairing windshields. We would greatly appreciate your input on this predicament.

P.S. Repair of windshields, along with the savings to the insurance industry, is a great savings to the environment. It prevents accumulation of windshields that are currently not recycled.

We have enclosed two videos for your perusal, one is submitted to educate the insurance companies about repair and one is a "live" video of repairs

being performed by our service and used in training. A letter directed to USAA Western Insurance disclosing some unethical traits of the replacement industry is also enclosed.

ID: 11678.ZTV

Mr. Peter V. Colan
Vice President
SportCrafters
P.O. Box 452
Granger, IN 46530

Dear Mr. Colan:

We have received your letter of March 10, 1996, asking several questions about the relationship of your "rear- mounted receiver hitch bicycle rack" to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your product is clearly intended as aftermarket equipment, to be attached to motor vehicles in use. No safety standard applies to your device as an item of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the sole Federal restriction on such an item of equipment is that it must not "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, if the product is added to the vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business. This is a statutory prohibition imposed by 49 U.S.C. 30122. Thus, if the rack prevented any rear lamp from complying with Federal photometric or visibility requirements, we would regard that as making the device inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition.

Under the law, however, the "make inoperative" prohibition does not extend to modifications made by the vehicle owner. If the rack is intended to be installed by the owner, there is no violation of a Federal law even if the installation causes a noncompliance with Federal lighting requirements. In this event, the acceptability of the rack as installed is governed by the laws of the state in which it is used. For this reason, the first four concerns you expressed are all answerable through reference to state law. We are unable to advise you on state

laws, and suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles of each state in which the equipment will be marketed and used.

If the rack is intended to be installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, you should take steps to ensure that the installation will not result in "making inoperative" any requirements of Standard No. 108, which is to say, in creating a noncompliance with visibility or photometric requirements. This relates to your Concerns 1b (reflectors and/or marker lamps) and 2 (taillamps) where you express an intention to supply some additional lamps and reflectors. Paragraph S5.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 allows the installation of optional equipment that would otherwise create a noncompliance provided that auxiliary lighting or marking equipment is also installed that meets the requirements of Standard No. 108. If this is your intent, it is also relevant to any interpretation you may seek from state motor vehicle officials. There are no Federal safety standards covering your Concerns 1a (regulations on hitch or bumper-mounted accessories), and 3 (licensing or registration). With respect to your Concern 4, visibility of the license plate is also subject to state jurisdiction. However, Standard No. 108 does specify requirements for lighting of the plate which could be affected by installation of the rack. The Federal requirements are identical to those of SAE Standard J587 OCT81 (which have been incorporated by reference).

Your final concern is the "safety tests (or analytical equivalent)" which may be recommended. You have used the term "DOT-approved" equipment which reflects a common misconception that the agency approves equipment. The agency has no authority to approve or disapprove any vehicle or equipment item. A manufacturer must satisfy itself that its equipment item or vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and then certify that it does so before delivering it for sale. If you wish to ensure that installation of your rack by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business does not create a noncompliance with the photometric or visibility requirements of Standard No. 108 (many of which are in SAE standards incorporated by reference), you must review these requirements in light of your design.

Finally, I would like to note that the rack is an accessory to a motor vehicle, and, as such, is an item of motor vehicle equipment as defined by 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B). Should either you or this agency determine that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists in the rack, you (the manufacturer) will be required to notify consumers and dealers, as specified in 49 U.S.C. 30108, and remedy the safety related defect at no expense to these consumers and dealers, as specified in 49 U.S.C. 30120.

I have enclosed a copy of a paper that provides information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#108 d:5/9/96