ID: nht94-7.49

DATE: March 9, 1994

FROM: J.L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs Ltd.

TO: Dave Elias -- Office of the Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/29/94 from John Womack to J.L. Steffy (A42; Part 565)

TEXT:

I am writing to ask for an interpretation of CFR 565.4 with the possibility of gaining a waiver from NHTSA.

With respect to the VIN Label Table VI shows that a letter code is given for each MODEL YEAR. Currently our VIN labels have a letter code for the YEAR PRODUCED. Therefore, a 1994 model year vehicle could have letter code "P" for 1993 if it was produced in November 1993, for example. This assists us from a traceability standpoint. WE WOULD LIKE TO MAINTAIN OUR PRESENT SYSTEM IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. I believe we agree with the spirit of 565.4, which is to match a time frame to a letter code within the VIN.

As we are currently preparing all items for entry into the U.S. this fall, I would like to hear from you as soon as possible. I appreciate your assistance.

ID: nht75-3.5

DATE: 07/07/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1975, requesting answers to two questions "relating to the requirements for 16 or 18 gage wire specified by [SAE Standard] J589" ["Turn Signal Switches"] in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You first asked:

"1. Once the switch has met test requirements using the 16 or 18 gage wire, can a switch manufacturer change the wire gage to a smaller or larger size for installation and use on a vehicle?"

We are uncertain as to what you mean. If you intended to refer to the vehicle manufacturer, the answer to the question is yes. He may use a gage other than 16 or 18 when the switch is installed in his vehicle. The test set forth in J589 is a laboratory test measuring voltage drop that must be met by a switch when 16 or 18 gage wire is used.

You next asked:

"2. Would a switch which was tested with other than 16 or 18 gage wire (larger or smaller) meet the certification requirements of Part 567 of the federal standards?"

When a manufacturer certifies conformance to Standard No. 108, he is indicating that the turn signal switch will meet the requirements of SAE J589 if tested with 16 or 18 gage wire. He may use any method he chooses to ensure this. This agency does not, through its certification requirements or otherwise, instruct manufacturers how to test their products.

Thank you for your suggestion that we amend Standard No. 108 to incorporate SAE J589 which does not specify the gage of wire for test purposes. We have already proposed adoption of J589b in Notice 3 of Docket No. 69-19.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

May 21, 1975

File No.: 61.A1588.A3107

James C. Schultz -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schultz:

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 specifies that signal switches meet the requirements of SAE J589. The durability test for switches in J589 states among other things that the voltage drop from the input terminal of the switch to each lamp terminal (including 3 inches of No. 16 or 18 gage wire from each side of the switch) should be measured at the beginning and at intervals of not more than 25,000 cycles during and upon completion of the test.

We would like answers to the following questions relating to the requirements for 16 or 18 gage wire specified by J589.

1. Once the switch has met test requirements using the 16 or 18 gage wire, can a switch manufacturer change the wire gage to a smaller or larger size for installation and use on a vehicle?

2. Would a switch which was tested with other than 16 or 18 gage wire (larger or smaller) meet the certification requirements of Part 567 of the federal standards?

We also note that the current version of J589 is J589b. This version does not specify the gage of wire for test purposes. If the answer to question one above is yes, we strongly recommend that consideration be given to amending Federal Standard No. 108 to indicate that switches meet the requirements of SAE J589b instead of J589.

Very truly yours,

WARREN M. HEATH -- Commander Engineering Section, DEPT. OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

ID: nht87-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dwight R. Koehler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dwight R. Koehler Product Management Parker Industries P.O. BOX 37589 Omaha, NE 68137

Dear Mr. Koehler:

This is in reply to your letter of December 9, 1986, with respect to agricultural (grain) transportation vehicles which you manufacture, known in the industry as "grain buggies." You have asked whether there are any DOT lighting requirements for these ve hicles, and if so, what are they and how might you meet them.

You have described the grain buggies as designed to be towed by agricultural tractors, with a top road speed of 25 to 3Q mph. You have also told us that "the primary use for these trailers will be 'off road' in nature," although "there are times when the se units will be used on gravel roads and occasionally, highways."

The requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment apply to various categories of "motor vehicles.' A "motor vehicle" is defined as a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufa ctured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. The manufacturer of a vehicle determines whether his product is a "motor vehicle" and therefore a vehicle that must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards inc luding Standard No. 108. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reserves the right to challenge any determination that appears clearly erroneous. On the basis of the information you have presented us, the grain buggies will be primarily used off the public roads, and u e of the public roads will be only incidental (in our experience agricultural equipment uses public roads for such limited purposes as crossing from one field to another, and delivery of produce to processing plants). Under th ese circumstances, we would not consider the grain buggies as "motor vehicles," and no Federal requirements would apply to them. They would, however, remain subject to any appropriate requirements of the State in which they are used.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

12/9/86

Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 407th Street Southwest Washington D.C., 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

We are a manufacturer of agricultural grain transportation vehicles, also known in the industry as "Grain Buggies". We manufacture 4 different models. (ref. enclosed product literature)

Although the primary use for these trailers will be "off road" in nature, we realize there are times when these units will be used on gravel roads and occasionally, highways. They are designed to be towed by agricultural tractors, which generally have a top road speed of 25 to 30 MPH.

Since we market these units over a wide geographic area, we felt the need to incorporate a comprehensive safety lighting system, which would conform to any Department of Transportation specifications for said vehicles if there were indeed any such specif ications.

We need to know two things:

1. Are there any DOT lighting requirements for these types of vehicles?

2. If there are any requirements, what are they and how can we meet them?

I have included some general descriptions of our products for your review.

We are committed to producing quality, safe equipment for our customers. Your response to our questions will help us meet our commitments.

Sincerely

Dwight R. Koehler Product Management Parker Industries P.O. Box 37589 Omaha, NE. 68137 (402) 595-3050

ID: nht88-4.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GEORGE F. BALL -- GM OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: NOVEMBER 28, 1988 LETTER FROM BALL TO JONES

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking our opinion as to whether a new minivan GM plans to introduce (referred to as the GM 200 minivans in your letter) could be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for the purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In your letter, you indicated GM's belief that this new minivan should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it will be constructed on a truck chassis.

Your company has concluded that this minivan will be constructed on a truck chassis for several reasons. First, you state that this chassis has "truck attributes" that make it more suitable for commercial use than a passenger car chassis would be. The examples of such truck attributes set forth in your letter were an integrated ladder-type frame with full-length longitudinal rails and supporting cross-members, an extended width rear axle, a powertrain certified as complying with the light-duty truck e missions standards, and a flat load floor. Second, you state the chassis is a truck chassis because a cargo van version of this vehicle will be marketed and sold for commercial use. Third, you provided an analysis showing that this minivan will have cer tain chassis and body characteristics similar to those characteristics of minivans that are now produced and classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on its manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA do es not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively stat e how we believe we would classify this vehicle for the purposes of the safety standards. It is important for GM to be

2

aware that these tentative statements of classification are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by GM, and the tentative classifications may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquir e additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the GM 200 minivan family could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the safety standards, because it will be constructed on a truck chassis. The fact that a cargo van version of the G M 200 will be marketed and sold for commercial use is evidence that the common chassis is a truck chassis. Additionally, the front to rear longitudinal side rails and supporting cross-members that are not present on the A-car chassis shows the GM 200 mi nivan chassis design is more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operations than the A-car chassis. Finally, the characteristics of the GM 200 chassis appear to be similar to the characteristics of other chassis that have been identified as "truck chass is" by their manufacturers. Accordingly, assuming that your description of the GM 200 chassis is accurate, it appears to us that this minivan is constructed on a truck chassis.

The version of your letter to me that has been placed in the public docket has all the information for which you requested confidential treatment deleted from it.

ID: 07-001340

ID: 3320o

George F. Ball, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel
General Motors Corporation
New Center One Building
3031 West Grand Boulevard
P.O. Box 33122
Detroit, MI 48232

Dear Mr. Ball:

This responds to your letter seeking our opinion as to whether a new minivan GM plans to introduce (referred to as the GM 200 minivans in your letter) could be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for the purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In your letter, you indicated GM's belief that this new minivan should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it will be constructed on a truck chassis.

Your company has concluded that this minivan will be constructed on a truck chassis for several reasons. First, you state that this chassis has "truck attributes" that make it more suitable for commercial use than a passenger car chassis would be. The examples of such truck attributes set forth in your letter were an integrated ladder-type frame with full-length longitudinal rails and supporting cross-members, an extended width rear axle, a powertrain certified as complying with the light-duty truck emissions standards, and a flat load floor. Second, you state the chassis is a truck chassis because a cargo van version of this vehicle will be marketed and sold for commercial use. Third, you provided an analysis showing that this minivan will have certain chassis and body characteristics similar to those characteristics of minivans that are now produced and classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on its manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe we would classify this vehicle for the purposes of the safety standards. It is important for GM to be aware that these tentative statements of classification are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by GM, and the tentative classifications may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the GM 200 minivan family could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the safety standards, because it will be constructed on a truck chassis. The fact that a cargo van version of the GM 200 will be marketed and sold for commercial use is evidence that the common chassis is a truck chassis. Additionally, the front to rear longitudinal side rails and supporting cross-members that are not present on the A-car chassis shows the GM 200 minivan chassis design is more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operations than the A-car chassis. Finally, the characteristics of the GM 200 chassis appear to be similar to the characteristics of other chassis that have been identified as "truck chassis" by their manufacturers. Accordingly, assuming that your description of the GM 200 chassis is accurate, it appears to us that this minivan is constructed on a truck chassis.

The version of your letter to me that has been placed in the public docket has all the information for which you requested confidential treatment deleted from it.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:571 d:l2/2l/88

ID: Winbel_scooter_v5

Amir Ambar
Winbel, Inc.
6231 McLeod Drive # E
Las Vegas, NV 89120

Dear Mr. Ambar:

This responds to the interpretation request sent to us by Alan Schnitzer, Esq. on your behalf, asking if a scooter you are attempting to import into the United States is a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of the regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As explained below, it is our opinion that the scooter is not a motor vehicle.

The legislation establishing NHTSAs vehicle safety authority is set out at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a person may not import into the United States, "any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard[.]" "Motor vehicle" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) as:

[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.

When determining if a vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, the agency will first look to see if the vehicle has on-road capabilities.

In an October 3, 1969, notice, the agency determined that while "mini-bikes" have on-road operating capabilities, they are not motor vehicles for the purpose of our standards. (34 Federal Register 15416; enclosed) At that time the agency found that "mini-bikes" were precluded from operation on public roads by a vast majority of States. The agency has determined this to still hold true. Further, "mini-bikes" were at that time promoted and advertised solely for off-road use.

The scooter that you are seeking to import was described as a "toy" intended for off-road use only. The literature submitted stated that the maximum speed of the scooter ranges between 12.5 and 16 miles per hour (mph). The scooter is shown to have an engine displacement of 36 cc, a height of 33 inches, and wheel diameters of ten and nine inches (front and rear, respectively). The owners manual and a label on the scooter warn against operating the scooter on public roads.

Based on the description provided, including its speed capabilities and small size, we conclude that the "scooter" you are seeking to import is properly characterized as a "mini-bike," and therefore is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of Chapter 301. The scooters low speed capability would prohibit it from being operated in normal moving traffic. This is reflected in the warning label. Further, the low sitting height and small wheel diameters are comparable if not smaller than those of the mini-bikes considered under the 1969 notice. While your scooter could theoretically be operated on public roads, we anticipate that because of its small size and absence of a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), which is generally required by States for vehicles authorized to operate on public roads, incidents of its actual operation on public streets, roads, and highways will be comparatively rare. We recognize that the scooter is equipped with a headlight, horn, turn signals, and a mirror. While this equipment may be seen as equipping the scooter for road use, we note that this equipment is also sometimes present on bicycles and other non-motor vehicles as well.

While we have concluded at this time that the scooter you are seeking to import is not a motor vehicle, we may re-evaluate our determination if we were to receive additional information indicating that the scooter (or similar ones) were being used on public roads on more than an incidental basis, the scooter were to be advertised for use on public roads, or the characteristics of the imported scooters were not consistent with the descriptions provided.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:571.3#597
d.11/26/03

ID: nht88-4.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: A.J. ACKLEY -- MARTEK CORP.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/26/88 FROM A. J. ACKLEY TO JOAN TILLGHMAN, OCC - 2096; LETTER DATED 06/10/88 FROM A J ACKLEY TO ERIKA Z JONES; OCC 2151

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ackley:

This is in response to your letter of May 26, 1988, in which you asked whether this agency anticipated any legal problems with the design of your proposed safety triangle. You noted in your letter and in an accompanying diagram that the design of your p roduct might differ from the typical design of a warning triangle because you intended to include a company's logo (the letter "T" in a star) within the safety triangle. I apologize for the delay in our response.

Your proposed product would be subject to Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR @571.125, Copy enclosed). This standard establishes requirements for devices that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traff ic of the presence of a stopped vehicle. Paragraph S5.2.6 states that

The device shall consist entirely of the triangular portion and attachments necessary for its support and enclosure, without additional visible shapes or attachments. (emphasis added)

The standard's express prohibition against "additional visible shapes or attachments" indicates that your proposal to include a logo in the center of the warning device would violate the safety standard. As a result, you could not legally market this pr oduct. The Safety Act provides for a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with all applicable safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht68-1.19

DATE: 08/12/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Robert Bosch GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Bureau of Customs has forwarded to us for further reply a copy of your letter to them of May 21 asking whether lighting units for passenger cars, which do not conform to the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 108, may be admitted to the United States after January 1, 1969.

Amended Federal standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1969, specifies lighting requirements for various categories of motor vehicle including passenger cars manufactured on or after that date. It does not specify requirements for individual items, or lighting equipment. This means that these individual items, no matter what the date of manufacture, may be imported into the United States after January 1, 1969, because they will have been manufactured on a date when there were no standards in effect applicable to them.

I hope this answers your question.

Sincerely,

TREASURY DEPARTMENT

BUREAU OF CUSTOMS

JUN 25 1968

AIRMAIL

A. Hammerstein Robert Bosch Gmbh

Dear Mr. Hamorstein:

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated May 21, 1968 a copy of which was forwarded to the Secretary of Transportation, concerning the application of Federal Safety Standard 108 to lighting uniss that are now being manufactured by Robert Bosch Gmbh.

The joint regulations of the Bureau of Customs and the Department of Transportation, copy enclosed, provide in section 12.80(b)(2)(i) for the importation of a non-conforming vehicle or equipment item if they were manufactured on a date when there were no applicable safety standards in force. Therefore, these lighting units manufactured prior to January 1, 1969, and offered for importation into the United States do not have to be in conformity with Federal Safety Standard 108.

Since your inquiry concerns a specific safety standard not yet in effect, we are forwarding your letter to the Department of Transportation, Highway Safety Bureau, Washington, D.C., for their consideration and direct reply.

Sincerely yours,

John D. Roeison

Assistant Director

(Entry and Liquidation)

Division of Appraisement and Collections

Enclosure 50359

cc: Department of Transportation

ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

CC: Alan S. Boyd

Secretary of Transportation

Lester D. Johnson Commissioner of Customs Department of the Treasury Bureau of Customs

Subject: Title 19-Customs Duties (T.D. 68-16) - Part 12-Special Classes of Merchandise - Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment - Federal Register Vol. 33, No. 6 of January 10, 1968

Gentlemen:

With the above mentioned publication, certain conditions are imposed for the importation of motor vehicle equipment into the United States.

In our opinion, one case occurring in practice is not covered by the exception granted under section (b). This is the case when replacement items are delivered for automotive vehicle manufactured before entering into force of a relevant Federal Safety Standard.

We are for instance to deliver lighting units equipped with white parking lamps for passenger cars, which are evidently not conforming to Federal Safety Standard 108.

The problem is now, whether it is possible and admissible to import such items and other ones into the United States after January 1, 1969. We add that it is well evident that such items are needed after this date, because vehicles are already equipped in such a manner and it would in our opinion to be too costly to replace two lighting units conforming to the rel;evant Federal Safety Standard, if only one replacement unit not conforming to the relevant Federal Safety standard is needed for a passenger car manufactured before January 1, 1969.

We should be very glad to have a rapid answer from you, since we have already now to care for corresponding replacement units. Leadtime is already now very scare.

Very truly yours,

A. Hammerstein

ID: nht95-2.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Stuart Sacks -- Tradepro, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/25/95 LETTER FROM STUART SACKS TO PHILIP R. RECHT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sacks:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Philip Recht, our former Chief Counsel, in which you stated that you are considering importing tires from the Hangzhou General Rubber Factory, which has been assigned NHTSA manufacturer identification number 7D. You s tated that the tires do not display the "molded D.O.T. code numbers," and that Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119), "clearly does not require [DOT code n umbers] for non-passenger tires." Your reading of FMVSS No. 119 is not correct.

I assume from your letter that you are considering importing only non-passenger car tires. This letter, then, will address only the labeling requirements for non-passenger car tires under FMVSS No. 119 and 49 CFR 574. I further assume that by "DOT code numbers" you mean the tire identification number (TIN) required by 49 CFR 574.5.

49 U.S. Code @ 30112 provides that no person may sell in or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. With respect to non-passenger car tires, which are it ems of motor vehicle equipment, section S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires specific items of information to be marked on the tire sidewalls. Those markings must be no less than 0.078 inch high and must be "raised above or sunk below the tire surface" a speci fied distance. Among other things, the markings must include the TIN (S6.5(b)).

Paragraph S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119 requires the TIN to comply with part 574. Part 574.5 requires that the TIN be permanently molded into or onto tire sidewalls as specified in Figure 1 of Part 574, and specifies what information the TIN must contain. Th e TIN can be branded into or onto the sidewalls of retreaded tires after the fact, but not new tires. On new tires, the TIN must be molded into or onto the tire sidewalls by the original manufacturer.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.