ID: 2626y

Mr. David J. Blackwell
Operations Manager
Liquidus Limited
37A Shorncliffe Road
Toronto, Ontario
48Z 5K2, Canada

Dear Mr. Blackwell:

This is in response to your letter asking whether a certain vehicle that you plan to export to the United States would be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You state that Liquidus has "designed a system" by customizing an existing road tanker for "overhead" loading. The vehicle you plan to export would be used for "aircraft de-icing storage" and "loading of aircraft de-icing tarmac vehicles while in a fixed location." The road tanker used in your system was originally built in Canada by a firm that has since gone out of business. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." Accordingly, your vehicle is subject to the safety standards only if it is considered within the definition of "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Tractors and other agricultural equipment are also not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., certain airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. In addition, items of mobile construction equipment which use the highways only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site are not considered motor vehicles.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has treated it as a motor vehicle. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has treated the vehicle as a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statements that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public roads.

NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretations that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered motor vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

We would apply these principles to the vehicle identified in your letter as follows. Your letter stated that this vehicle will be immobilized after it reaches the airport. Assuming this immobilization occurs, this vehicle would appear to be designed and sold solely for off-road use, just like certain other airport runway vehicles. In this case, it would not be a motor vehicle, even though it is operationally capable of highway travel before the immobilization.

However, if the vehicle were not subsequently immobilized, and were moved from airport to airport with only a limited stay at any job site, this vehicle might be considered a "motor vehicle." This conclusion would be even more likely if a significant percentage of the vehicle's purchasers were to use the vehicle by moving it from airport to airport, notwithstanding your company's intent that the vehicles not be so used. This situation would be analogous to the classification of dune buggies.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please contact John Rigby of this office by mail at the above address or by telephone at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:VSA d:8/20/90

ID: 2635y

Mr. David J. Blackwell
Operations Manager
Liquidus Limited
37A Shorncliffe Road
Toronto, Ontario
48Z 5K2, Canada

Dear Mr. Blackwell:

This is in response to your letter asking whether a certain vehicle that you plan to export to the United States would be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You state that Liquidus has "designed a system" by customizing an existing road tanker for "overhead" loading. The vehicle you plan to export would be used for "aircraft de-icing storage" and "loading of aircraft de-icing tarmac vehicles while in a fixed location." The road tanker used in your system was originally built in Canada by a firm that has since gone out of business. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." Accordingly, your vehicle is subject to the safety standards only if it is considered within the definition of "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Tractors and other agricultural equipment are also not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., certain airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. In addition, items of mobile construction equipment which use the highways only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site are not considered motor vehicles.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has treated it as a motor vehicle. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has treated the vehicle as a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statements that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public roads.

NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretations that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered motor vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

We would apply these principles to the vehicle identified in your letter as follows. Your letter stated that this vehicle will be immobilized after it reaches the airport. Assuming this immobilization occurs, this vehicle would appear to be designed and sold solely for off-road use, just like certain other airport runway vehicles. In this case, it would not be a motor vehicle, even though it is operationally capable of highway travel before the immobilization.

However, if the vehicle were not subsequently immobilized, and were moved from airport to airport with only a limited stay at any job site, this vehicle might be considered a "motor vehicle." This conclusion would be even more likely if a significant percentage of the vehicle's purchasers were to use the vehicle by moving it from airport to airport, notwithstanding your company's intent that the vehicles not be so used. This situation would be analogous to the classification of dune buggies.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please contact John Rigby of this office by mail at the above address or by telephone at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:VSA d:8/20/90

ID: nht79-4.31

DATE: 06/29/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 1, 1979, regarding the provision of Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) information to vehicle first purchasers (49 CFR 575.104(d)(l)(iii)). You ask whether UTQG information must be provided to first purchasers of vehicles manufactured after the UTQG sidewall molding effective date for the type of tire used on the vehicle, if the vehicle is equipped with tires manufactured prior to the effective date.

Section 575.104(d)(l)(iii) requires that tire grading information be furnished, in the case of bias-ply tires,

". . . to the first purchaser of a new motor vehicle, other than a motor vehicle equipped with bias-ply tires manufactured prior to October 1, 1979, . . ."

Thus, UTQG first purchaser information is not required for vehicles manufactured after the bias-ply sidewall molding effective date of October 1, 1979, but equipped with tires manufactured prior to that date. The regulation applies in the same manner to vehicles equipped with bias-belted and radial tires manufactured prior to April 1, 1980, and October 1, 1980, respectively.

In order to avoid confusion regarding the date of manufacture of tires installed on particular vehicles, manufacturers may choose to supply UTQG information to all first purchasers of vehicles manufactured after the effective date for sidewall molding for the tire type used as standard equipment on the vehicles.

ID: nht89-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 13, 1989

FROM: BILL WALTZ -- WAGNER DIVISION, COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC.

TO: STEPHEN WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED APRIL 8, 1990 TO BILL WALTZ FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108)

TEXT:

Lectric Limited has asked Wagner to assemble some round glass headlights for them, designed to appear as closely as possible to those produced by Guide Lamp in the 1950's.

All markings and configurations on the original lamps are being reproduced and this creates a problem in complying with "108". The lamps they are interested in are 6012 (7"), 4001 (5 3/4" #1) and 4002 (5 3/4" #2). In accordance with the original marking they will have a "1" or "2" at the top of the lens, not the "2D1", "1C1" and "2C1" now required by NHTSA.

Secondly, the inscription DOT, indicating compliance with existing regulations, will be omitted, since this was obviously riot on the original lamps.

We are asking your permission for those deviations since the lamps will be made to today's photometric standards and will be distributed on a limited basis through antique part dealers. The lamps will be subjected to all the tests currently required of the round headlights.

If there is any problem with this production, please let me know, so that we can try to worK out a solution satisfactory to all parties involved.

ID: nht93-1.37

DATE: February 17, 1993

FROM: James L. Vasko

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-23-93 from John Womack to James L. Vasko (A40; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 11-1-89 from Stephen P. Wood to John K. Moody

TEXT: Thank you for responding so quickly to my letter regarding my "Front Brake Light System". I will try to answer your questions as complete as possible. Please note any other questions or comments you may have as you continue through this letter and I will be happy to answer them in our next correspondence.

The answers to your questions are as follows. Your assumption is correct that my Front Brake Light System has no effect on the hazard warning system. The Front and Back hazard lights will remain the same as they are now.

The way the Front Brake Light System is accomplished without the necessity and expense of adding new complicated apparatus is by installing two wires and four clips. The wires would connect the master cylinder brake light switch to the front turn signals to act in unison with the back turn signals so they will act as brake lights as well as turn signals. The brake light switch and the turn signals switch are located under the dash on all vehicles. There would be no cost to manufacturers when new cars are built. Retrofiting existing vehicles would be a simple and in expensive matter and little cost to the consumer. Retrofiting could be done by any auto mechanic or smog station in less than 30 minutes. This Front Brake Light System will save more lives and prevent more accidents than the existing rear Brake Lights do today.

This Front Brake Light System will definitely enhance safety. The following are everyday scenarios:

1) Making a left turn in front of on-coming traffic will be much safer because you will be able to identify then on-coming vehicles will be in braking mode.

2) Pulling out into traffic will be safer as you can tell when a vehicle is slowing down, yielding for you.

3) Pulling out into an intersection with a green light, you could look left and right and make sure all vehicles have there front brake lights on showing that they are stopping.

4) Driver of a vehicle can glance into rear view mirror to see if vehicles are braking.

5) Pedestrians could be sure that vehicles are braking before stepping out into traffic, guessing should not be part of surviving.

6) I have operated emergency vehicles for the last 23 years as a Fremont Firefighter, all emergency vehicles are at grave risk with each and every call

they go out on. As the emergency vehicles approach intersections they have to look and guess if the vehicles are braking for there is no front brake indicators on vehicles forcing emergency vehicles to come to a complete stop at all intersections. Every city in the nation can show fatality accidents occur because we do not have front-end information.

7) Vehicles often have there turn signals on and fail to turn which causes many many accidents, as people think they are going to turn and pull out in front of a vehicle and they get hit. With the brake light system there, the Driver pulling out into traffic, would see the turn signal and the brake light showing that the vehicle was braking and turning.

8 ) The car in the lane next to you pulls ahead of you and signals to pull into your lane, you touch your brake peddle which signals to car in front of you that you are yielding for him to pull into your lane in front of you.

All drivers would learn quickly to key in on front brake lights making all phases of driving much safer and predictable. These scenarios go on and on, no one should ever have to say "I thought they were slowing down" or "I thought they saw me". Most accidents that occur are from lack of front-end information.

I'd be most interested to receive your interpretation of the relationship of my invention to the statutes and regulations that your agency administers. My FAX# is 1-510-792-6627, if wish to FAX a letter please feel free to do so.

It is for the benefit of all Americans that this new system be tested and placed in service as soon as possible because many lives are being lost or demaged daily because of lack of vehicle front-end information.

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht91-3.2

DATE: March 28, 1991

FROM: Takeo Wakamatsu -- Executive Vice President, General Manager, Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.

TO: Scott Shadle -- Supervisor, Vehicle Certification, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Derating of Trucks

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Takeo Wakamatsu (A37; Part 567)

TEXT:

Mitsubishi Fuso Truck of America, Inc. (MFTA), is the importer and distributor of trucks as incomplete vehicles manufactured by Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC Japan has asked Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc. (MMA), the liaison between MFTA and MMC Japan, to make the following request on their behalf.

MMC is considering derating the GVW of the trucks imported for the purpose of marketing strategy.

In this case, the brake system will not be modified and the vehicle should be in compliance with FMVSS 105 requirements. MMC would supply the new VIN plates with the derated GVW and have MFTA replace the old ones with the new ones.

We expect this kind of modification is such an implementation that has to meet with official approval. At this time, we are asking you for your approval of this modification.

If there are any additional questions you have regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me at (609)467-4664.

Your anticipated cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.

ID: 2966yy

Mr. Richard F. Land
Bureau of Manpower and Facilities
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment
287 Plus Park Blvd.
Nashville, TN 37247-0701

Dear Mr. Land:

This responds to your February 12, 1991 letter to Ms. Fujita of my staff concerning the ambulance fleet you recently inspected. Each ambulance had a wooden block mounted under the accelerator pedal to limit the driver's ability to accelerate the vehicle. You state that Tennessee law does not prohibit installation of these "makeshift speed governors." However, you would like to know whether NHTSA's requirements would prohibit installation of the blocks.

The answer to your question is no. In a March 26 telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita, you said that the blocks were installed by the ambulance owner. Our standards do not regulate in any manner how a vehicle owner can modify his or her vehicle.

If the blocks were installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, certain requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits any person in the aforementioned categories from knowingly "render[ing] inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in compliance with an FMVSS. However, there would be no rendering inoperative of compliance with the FMVSS for accelerator control systems (FMVSS 124) in the situation you described, because that FMVSS does not establish requirements for accelerator pedal actuation. Of course, the installation of the block must not have rendered inoperative compliant equipment or designs on the vehicle that were installed pursuant to other safety standards. For example, the block must not interfere with the vehicle's braking ability.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#124 d:4/l2/9l

ID: 8866

Mr. Charles D. Shipley
Director
Ohio Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 7167
Columbus, OH 43266-0563

Dear Mr. Shipley:

Thank you for your letter of July 6, 1993, informing us of the views of your Department with respect to the legality under Ohio law of underbody-mounted neon lighting on motor vehicles.

You have asked for information and guidance in addressing the possible hazards and confusion presented by this aftermarket equipment. I am afraid that there is little we can do to help you. The agency has not made a study of possible safety hazards from this relatively new item of motor vehicle equipment, and yours is, perhaps, only the third letter this Office has received on the subject. I enclose a copy of our letter of April 21, 1992, to Allan Schwartz who inquired about such a system.

You have also asked for information on applicable Federal regulations. There is no Federal prohibition on the manufacture and sale of underbody neon lights. This appears to be an aftermarket system which is purchased and installed on vehicles in use. We have advised that, under these circumstances and under Federal law, there is no prohibition against owner-installation of underbody neon lights, and that use of such equipment is determinable under the laws of any State where a vehicle so equipped is operated. As we do not interpret State laws, we have referred our correspondents to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for further information.

Installation of aftermarket underbody neon lighting by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business is not prohibited under Federal law as long as it does not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in or on a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). If it could be demonstrated that use of the neon lighting impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment installed in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 then arguably the lighting equipment has been rendered partially inoperative and a violation of the prohibition may have occurred.

Your letter is the first expression we have had of possible conflict of underbody neon lighting with State laws and of potential safety issues related to this equipment. As such, it will assist us in replying to future inquiries on this subject. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:18#108 d:7/29/93

ID: 22894.ztv

Mr. Tadashi Suzuki
Manager, Regulation & Homologation
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153-8636
Japan





Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 2001, asking for an interpretation of S7.8.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

S7.8.5 specifies that "When activated in a steady-burning state, headlamps shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grill, in front of the lens." This prohibition was developed when the only headlamps available were sealed beam units. You state that the majority of headlamps today are individually designed for specific vehicles and you believe that the performance of these headlamps can be controlled so that if they have additional parts, the headlamp designer has complete control over them. Therefore "banning of styling parts for all kinds of headlamps has no meaning to safety." For this reason, you "believe S7.8.5 is not applicable to headlamps designed for specific vehicle models."

We do not agree with your interpretation. S7.8.5 contains no qualifying language; it applies to all headlamps. However, S7.8.5 does not prohibit use of a "styling ornament or other feature" in the lens itself, or behind the lens, if the headlamp with these features is certified as complying with Standard No. 108.

We also call your attention to S5.1.3 which, in effect, prohibits additional motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Any styling feature or other part of a motor vehicle that is in front of the lens of a headlamp in use has the potential to impair the light output of the lamp. Even if there is no impairment initially, grills and covers prevent the lamps from being cleaned. Covers themselves are susceptible to accumulations of dirt and moisture on their inner surface. These accumulations on the outer surface of the headlamp lens can cause glare and reduction in roadway illumination

(S5.1.3 would also prohibit, as original equipment, covers over required lighting equipment other than headlamps, for the same reason of impairment). While our laws do not prohibit the sale of lamp covers in the aftermarket, their installation would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. In that instance, there would be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) if the covers were installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.5/9/01

ID: nht88-4.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/16/88

FROM: TERRY HUDYMA -- LAFORZA AUTOMIBILES INC

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: 49CFR 567, CERTIFICATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/07/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO TERRY HUDYMA -- LAFORZA AUTOMOBILES; REDBOOK A34 B; PART 567; PART 568; LETTER DATED 05/06/85 FROM JOFFREY R. MILLER CHIEF COUNSEL TO HAYLEY ALEXANDER

TEXT: Dear Sirs:

LAFORZA Automobiles (formerly Rayton Fissore North America) has acquired the US rights to manufacture and sell a MPV designed and manufactured by Rayton Fissore of Cherasco, Italy. LAFORZA Automobiles is incorporated in the state of California.

The vehicle will be built in two stages. Pininfarina will build the vehicle complete with everything except the engine (and associated equipment such as ignition and air conditioning, etc.) transmission and transfer case in Italy. These items along with some of the lighting fixtures will be installed by Cars and Concepts in Brighton, Michigan to complete the vehicle. These operations both will be performed by the respective firms under contract to LAFORZA Automobiles. Thus LAFORZA Automobiles will ha ve complete control of the manufacturing process at all times.

It is our understanding that under these circumstances, LAFORZA Automobiles is considered to be the manufacturer of the vehicle. They therefore must apply the certification label required under 49CFR Part 567, Certification, upon completion of the vehic le at Cars and Concepts Inc.

Please provide us with a verification of our interpretation of this matter with a copy to our Safety Consultant, Haus W. Metzger, 6323 E. Turquoise Ave., Scottsdale, Arizona 85253.

We would appreciate a prompt reply. Thank you for your coorperation in this matter.

Yours truly