ID: 8088

Mr. Frank E. Timmons
Rubber Manufacturers Association
1400 K St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Timmons:

This responds to your letter about our November 1992 letter to the Under Secretary, Kuwait Ministry of Commerce. In that letter, NHTSA discussed Federal requirements for tires sold in the United States for passenger cars and other "motor vehicles." You wish to ensure that the Under Secretary understands that the term "motor vehicles" only refers to vehicles "manufactured primarily for use on highways."

We are glad to clarify the meaning of the term "motor vehicle." "Motor vehicle" is defined in 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 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." (Emphasis added.) Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle that the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function.

This agency has issued many interpretations of what is and what is not a "motor vehicle." In general, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Likewise, vehicles that are designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They would, however, be considered motor vehicles if the manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of its customers actually would use them on the highway.

Vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are considered motor vehicles. Furthermore, even if the majority of a vehicle's use will be off-road but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, this agency has interpreted that to be a motor vehicle.

We appreciate your interest in this matter and will provide the Under Secretary with a copy of this letter. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Under Secretary, Kuwait Ministry of Commerce ref:109#119#571#574 d:2/11/93

ID: nht79-3.16

DATE: 11/14/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Performance Plus Products, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to the questions that you raised on October 23, 1979, with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office concerning the legal and technical issues arising from the manufacture of auxiliary fuel tanks for use in pickup trucks. You noted that you are going into the business of manufacturing auxiliary fuel tanks, that you will not be involved in the installation of such tanks, and that you would like any advice that we might be able to provide as to the construction standards that should be followed in manufacturing such tanks.

I have enclosed a copy of a letter which was sent to a company that planned to manufacture auxiliary fuel tanks for passenger cars and to do some installation. The legal principles enunciated in that letter are applicable to auxiliary fuel tanks intended for use in all types of motor vehicles except motor carriers in interstate commerce. Although your company is not planning to install auxiliary tanks, I think that you might find that the discussion of the legal issues that arise with respect to installation may be helpful in determining what safety margins should be built into these types of tanks.

As Ms. Weiner noted on the phone, this agency has not issued any standards applicable to the construction of auxiliary fuel tanks. However, the Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety has issued standards relevant to the construction of auxiliary fuel tanks for use in motor vehicles which are engaged in interstate commerce. I have enclosed a copy of these standards in hope that they will provide you with some suggestions as to what would constitute safe construction of an auxiliary fuel tank. In addition, the Society of Automotive Engineers has published standards pertinent to some aspects of the construction of fuel tanks. I have also enclosed copies of these.

I hope that you will find the enclosed material helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Weiner for further information.

ID: nht94-3.71

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 15, 1994

FROM: Guy Dorleans -- Legal Compliance Department, Valeo Vision (France)

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/31/94 from John Womack to Guy Dorleans (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am inquiring for information and assistance with the interpretation of Section 571.108 of the Federal Traffic Code. The attached sketch shows the front end of a vehicle which incorporates the following features:

Lamp A is a highbeam contributor with one monofilament light source. The wiring of the vehicle dies not allow this lamp to be lit alone in highbeam mode. Lamp A is 150 mm high, between level 750 and level 600 above the ground.

Lamp B is the lowbeam with one monofilament light source. Its light emitting area is 50 mm high, between level 650 and 700.

Lamp C is a combination of parking lamp and turn signal.

In highbeam mode, both filaments A and B are energized simultaneously and table 17a of FMVSS 108 is then fulfilled.

Lamp D is a foglamp.

As an alternative to the above description, we would like to know whether it is permissible to sell new cars in the United States with the foglamp replaced by an auxiliary driving beam. In this case, all three A, B and D filaments would be permanently e nergized together in high beam mode and table 17a of FMVSS 108 is then fulfilled. Lamp D alone, when tested in a laboratory, would satisfy the photometric requirements of SAE J581 June 89.

In another variant, two or three filaments could be switched on in highbeam mode depending on the position of a switch on the instrument panel, at the discretion of the driver. Whatever the position of the switch, table 17a of FMVSS 108 shall be fulfill ed. Would this be permissible?

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Graphics omitted.

ID: nht94-4.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Keith E. Smith -- Piper & Marbury

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 5/27/94: Letter from Keith E. Smith to John G. Womack (OCC-10104)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers automotive and motorcycle braking systems to be "safety devices." As explained below, the agency considers such systems to be items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that neither the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (formerly at 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. and recently codified in Title 49 of the U.S. Code) nor the agency's regulations in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations use the phrase "safety device." Rather, the statute refers to "motor vehicles" and "motor vehicle equipment." Specifically, motor vehicle equipment is defined, in relevant part, as

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . .

Under this definition, NHTSA would consider an automotive or motorcycle braking system to be an item of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are issued to meet the need for safety. For example, the purpose of Standard No. 105, which regulates hydraulic brake systems of passenger cars and other specified vehicles, is "to insure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions." See S2 of Standard No. 105. Similarly, the purpose of Standard No. 122, which regulates motorcycle brake systems, is "to insure safe motorcycle braking performance under normal and emergency co nditions." See S2 of Standard No. 122.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-2.35

DATE: March 30, 1993

FROM: Dann T. Deaver -- President, Origins International Corporation

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-23-93 from John Womack to Dann T. Deaver (A41; VSA 102(3)); Also attached to letter dated 12-3-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Matthew J. Plache; Also attached to letter dated 10-31-88 from Erika Z. Jones (Signature by Stephen P. Wood) to Hiroshi Kato; Also attached to letter dated 4-16-85 from Jeffrey R. Miller to Alexander E. Nagy

TEXT: At your request during our telephone conversation today, the following is a description of the physical characteristics and intended use of an electric vehicle which my company has been commissioned to develop.

GENERAL DATA

LENGTH - 107" HEIGHT - 61" BODY WIDTH - 58" WIDTH WITH MIRRORS - 71"

WEIGHT - 1050 LBS.

POWER - 48V SERIES DC, ELECTRIC SPEED RANGE: 1 25 MPH MAX.

MARKET USE

This vehicle will be marketed as a closed community vehicle for retirement communities, closed club grounds, on site/off road/construction vehicles, theme parks, resorts, etc. The vehicle is not to be marketed as useable on public thoroughfares and/or highways. The tires are of a high profile design capable of being used on golf courses, and golf bag wells and golf accessories are designed into the vehicle.

Where many golf cars today are used in the above applications, our vehicle provides better handling, greater load carrying capability, higher speed, longer range, better weather protection, and a very unique appearance and package.

As we discussed today, it is important that we are made aware of any federal safety regulations which may apply to vehicles of the above description and use. Concurrently we are exploring similar state vehicle safety/equipment requirements.

We would appreciate a letter, addressed to me at the address below, stating your Department's position on this matter.

I appreciate your attention and consideration.

ID: nht95-2.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 22, 1995

FROM: Giuseppe Di Vito -- Societa Italiana Vetro S.p.A., Sede E Stabilimenti

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for legal interpretation, FMVSS 205.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO GIUSEPPE DI VITO (A43; STD. 205; REDBOOK 2)

TEXT: Dear Sir,

INTRODUCTION

Siv hereby request an interpretation for the testing of a Glass-Plastic glazing item 15A, FMVSS 205. We respectfully request the NHTSA's response at the soonest possible date.

PURPOSE

We ask by this letter for your interpretation involving testing of glazing item AS 15A, Glass Plastic (Annealed Glass-Plastic for use in all position in a Vehicle except for Windshield). We request an interpretation of whether or not test no.5 (bake ANSI Z.26.1-1977) may substitute test no. 4 (boil, ANSI Z26.1-1977) for certification of compliance of that glazing.

BACKGROUND

BMW requested our company to develop a security glazing made of:

1. Door glass: Glass - Polyurethane - Polycarbonate, as per enclosed sketch no. 1. 2. Rear Quarterlite: Glass - Polyvinylbutirale, as per enclosed sketch no. 2.

Both these glass plastic parts have an internal safety spall shield to protect occupants against facial injuries coming form glass particles when the side window is broken or in case of accident. This product meets all the ECE R 43 compliance tests, whi ch include a 100 degrees C (212 degrees F) bake test. The product meets all the applicable test of FMVSS 205 except test n degrees 4 (boil test), which is not compatible with adhesion of the internal spall shield.

This type of glazing will be installed on a limited number of 1996 BMW cars to be sold in Europe and USA. BMW and SIV believe that this spall shield is an important safety innovation, whose absence would not allow introduction of these side windows into the USA.

We expect your urgent answer and thank you in advance.

Attachment Bar graphs - security glazing (omitted).

ID: nht95-3.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 21, 1995

FROM: Heather Paul -- Executive Director, National Safe Kids Campaign

TO: Patricia Breslin, Ph.D. -- Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/5/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ANGELA MICKALIDE (REDBOOK 2; STD. 213; A43)

TEXT: Dear Dr. Breslin:

As you know, the National SAFE KIDS Campaign and its partners, the National Safety Council, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the State and Territorial Injury Prevention Directors Association, will be distributing approximately 38,00 0 child safety seats to families in need over the next few months.

This presents an ideal opportunity for research on the effectiveness of the child safety seat distribution process. The Campaign is submitting a written request to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for an interpretation of the Federal M otor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVqSS) 213. Specifically, the Campaign is interested in modifying the uniform child restraint registration card to collect information about recipient families' sociodemographic profile, the type of cars in which the child safety seats would typically be installed in order to address incompatibility issues, and the comprehensiveness of the educational outreach at the distribution sites (see enclosed draft).

The Campaign would require the distribution site coordinators to complete the modified child [Illegible Word] registration card with the recipient family prior to distributing the child safety seat. This would yield almost a 100% child safety seat regis tration response rate which would allow NHTSA and the manufacturer to more readily notify families about recalls. Distribution site coordinators would mail the cards directly to the manufacturer, who would then tabulate the data for the Campaign's evalu ation research purposes.

Please call me or Dr. Angela Mickalide, Program Director, as soon as possible in order to resolve this important child safety matter. Thank you in advance for your timely response to the Campaign's request for an interpretation of FMVSS 213.

(Enclosure omitted.)

ID: nht95-5.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 21, 1995

FROM: Heather Paul -- Executive Director, National Safe Kids Campaign

TO: Patricia Breslin, Ph.D. -- Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/5/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ANGELA MICKALIDE (REDBOOK 2; STD. 213; A43)

TEXT: Dear Dr. Breslin:

As you know, the National SAFE KIDS Campaign and its partners, the National Safety Council, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the State and Territorial Injury Prevention Directors Association, will be distributing approximately 38,000 child safety seats to families in need over the next few months.

This presents an ideal opportunity for research on the effectiveness of the child safety seat distribution process. The Campaign is submitting a written request to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for an interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVqSS) 213. Specifically, the Campaign is interested in modifying the uniform child restraint registration card to collect information about recipient families' sociodemographic profile, the type of cars in which the child safety seats would typically be installed in order to address incompatibility issues, and the comprehensiveness of the educational outreach at the distribution sites (see enclosed draft).

The Campaign would require the distribution site coordinators to complete the modified child [Illegible Word] registration card with the recipient family prior to distributing the child safety seat. This would yield almost a 100% child safety seat registration response rate which would allow NHTSA and the manufacturer to more readily notify families about recalls. Distribution site coordinators would mail the cards directly to the manufacturer, who would then tabulate the data for the Campaign's evaluation research purposes.

Please call me or Dr. Angela Mickalide, Program Director, as soon as possible in order to resolve this important child safety matter. Thank you in advance for your timely response to the Campaign's request for an interpretation of FMVSS 213.

(Enclosure omitted.)

ID: nht70-1.38

DATE: 01/29/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Eshelman Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 20, 1969, in which you responded to our inquiry concerning consumer information on vehicles sold by your company.

You stated that your Golden Eagle cars are "made from new model Chevrolets without any mechanical change," and that the "consumer information and the warranty book as supplied by General Motors are passed along to the consumer with the vehicle." You also stated that you place a label next to the CM certification label, quoting language similar to that specified in the Certification Regulations for the distributor who alter a vehicle, 49 CFR @ 367.6. We are enclosing a copy of the Certification Regulation; please note that the abovementioned distributor statement, if it is applicable, requires the month and year of alteration to be stated immediately after the name of the distributor.

The question whether the procedure you have outlined in respect to certification is acceptable depends on whether the alterations that you perform on the Chevrolets are sufficiently minor to place you in the category of "distributor" rather than "manufacturer". In order to make this determination, we need and would like to receive more detailed information on the work that you do on the vehicles.

The question whether the practice you describe, of passing on the General Motors consumer information, is acceptable depends on whether the information is actually correct for the vehicle as you alter then. The weight of the final vehicle, for example, is an important factor in the vehicle's performance in all three areas of acceleration, braking, and tire reserve load. We should mention that you are fully responsible, subject to the penalties specified in section 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, for ensuring that the correctness of the consumer information that you provide with your vehicles is not adversely affected by the work that you do on them, whether you are ultimately placed in the category of manufacturer or distributor.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht70-1.4

DATE: 08/03/70

FROM: JOSEPH R. O'GORMAN FOR FRANCIS ARMSTRONG -- NHTSA

TO: Evans, Gentither and Meermans

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 USC 1381 et. seq., the National Highway Safety Bureau issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109 (FMVSS-109). This standard set forth strength, bead unseating, endurance, high speed and labeling requirements for passenger car tires manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, for use on cars manufactured after 1948. This standard does not apply to other types of tires. A copy of FMVSS-109 is enclosed. A manufacturer self-certifies that the tire meets the minimum requirements of the standard by molding the symbol "DOT" into the tire. Subsequent identification of the tire as a "second" would not negate the certification.

The National Highway Safety Bureau is currently testing many brand/size tires to verify their conformance to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. The tests are conducted at independent laboratories under contract to the Government. Results of these tests are released to the public in a monthly summary.

The test results do not reflect the Bureau's position on the matter. Favorable test results should not be interpreted as necessarily establishing that a specific tire is in conformity with the standard; similarly, unfavorable test results should not be interpreted as establishing nonconformance.

Copies of individual test reports can be obtained, for a fee of $ 3.00 per publication, from the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, Springfield, Virginia 22151. Should sufficient data be left remaining on the tire in question for proper identification, you may wish to avail yourself of this service.

There is an organization which could possibly furnish you with the name of an individual capable of analyzing the causes of tire failures. Their name and address is; American Council of Independent Laboratories, Incorporated, 1714 West Capitol Avenue, Houston, Texas 77007.

I trust this information will be useful to you, and I appreciate this opportunity to be of assistance.