ID: 8836a

Mr. Howard Schecter
P. O. Box 61353
Honolulu, HI 96839

Dear Mr. Schecter:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements (49 CFR 571.115). In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that you own a three-wheel motorcycle built with all used parts. The engine and other parts are from a used Corvair passenger car, and additional parts are from used motorcycles. Your letter asks whether your motorcycle must be assigned a vehicle identification number (VIN). The answer is no.

Standard No. 115 applies to new motor vehicles, including motorcycles. NHTSA does not consider your motorcycle as new, since it was built entirely out of used parts. Since Standard No. 115 applies only to new motor vehicles, and NHTSA does not consider your motorcycle to be new, the motorcycle's rebuilder need not, under NHTSA's regulations, assign a VIN to the motorcycle.

Your letter stated that the State of Hawaii's Reconstructed Vehicle Department (RVD) would not register your motorcycle since it has no VIN. Registration procedures for motor vehicles are set by each State, not NHTSA. However, we suggest that you show this letter to the RVD officials to explain that your motorcycle need not be assigned a VIN under NHTSA's regulations.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:115 d:8/16/93

ID: nht93-5.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: Harold R. Burke, Esq. -- Duel and Holland

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Importation of type M-151 military vehicle

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/16/94 from John Womack to Harold R. Burke (A42; Part 591; VSA Sec 571.7(a))

TEXT:

At the suggestion of Mr. George Shifflett, I am contacting you with respect to the importation of approximately 8,000 type M-151 military vehicles ("Jeeps") originally built in the United States between 1973-75. These vehicles have never been used and are currently located outside this country. It is my client's intention to return these vehicles to the United States and resell them for use here. Specifically, my client requests a legal opinion as to the following questions:

1. As U.S. origin vehicles which have been outside this country since 1975 are they now classified as "foreign" vehicles which are subject to current D.O.T. and E.P.A. safety and emissions criteria?

2. If they are not considered "foreign" vehicles what, if any, D.O.T. regulations would apply to the registration of such vehicles for use on U.S. roads?

3. If they are considered "foreign" vehicles what, if any, D.O.T. regulations would apply to the registration of such vehicles for use on U.S. roads?

If I can provide any additional information with respect to these questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you and your earliest reply will be appreciated.

ID: 21723.ztv

Randy Thomas, Vice President, Marketing
Westward Industries Ltd.
P.O. Box 1288
Portage la Prairie
Manitoba
Canada

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This is in reply to your letter of May 18, 2000, responding to my letter of March 27, 2000, inviting you to submit further information needed for a decision that the Daewoo Labo that you would like to export to the United States is not a "motor vehicle."

You previously described the vehicle as "a small truck from Korea," which you would modify by installing a governor limiting its speed to 40 km/h (25 mph), "as well as installing turf tires and hydraulics for a dump box which we manufacture here." You stated that the truck is similar to the Metro Motors "Microtruck" and Cushman's "White" truck, and would be used "for the same utility purposes." You informed us that the truck "would be sold only for off road applications." We replied that your assurances that the modified Labo would be sold only for off- road applications were not dispositive of this issue. There appeared to be no reasons why a purchaser could not obtain a license for on-road use of the truck. Further, the planned modifications were also insufficient for us to conclude that the Labo was no longer a motor vehicle. In our opinion, neither the modified speed limit nor the addition of turf tires were inconsistent with a conclusion that this vehicle remains a "truck."

We also informed you that in cases that are not clear cut, we apply five factors in reaching a determination. I enclosed a copy of our letter of January 25, 1999, to William Sanford of Metro Motors which discussed these factors, and your letter of May 18, 2000, seeks to address them.

The first factor is whether the vehicle will be advertised for on-road as well as off-road use, or whether it will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

You have stated that "The Daewoo Labo vehicle will be promoted as an 'off-road only vehicle' and all literature will include the information that these vehicles are for 'off-road use only.'"

Your response suggests that, applying this factor, the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles.

The second factor is whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

You have stated that you will "supply documentation with the vehicle (Certificate of Origin) which will clearly state that these vehicles are for off-road use only. The wording of this statement will be 'THIS VEHICLE DOES NOT CONFORM TO ALL SAFETY AND EMISSIONS STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ON-ROAD VEHICLES IN THE UNITED STATES.'" You have also stated that you will direct your dealers to include this statement on any invoice or bill of sale that they produce. Your response would indicate that, applying this factor, the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles.

The third factor is whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles.

You have replied that your "target market for these vehicles is golf course equipment dealers and industrial dealers such as forklift dealers." The vehicles sold by these dealers are not motor vehicles. Your response suggests that, applying this factor, the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles.

The fourth factor is whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads.

You have replied that you "will be attaching warning labels inside the vehicle, which state 'THIS VEHICLE IS FOR OFF-ROAD USE ONLY.' The same message will appear on placards on the exterior of the vehicle." Applying this factor would indicate also that the vehicles are not motor vehicles.

The fifth and final factor is whether states or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

You have replied that it is your "opinion that these vehicles, as modified, would not be considered for 'on-road use' in any country or state." You conclude by expressing your belief that the precautions you have previously discussed "will preclude anyone from registering this vehicle as an on-road vehicle." We assume that the trucks as originally manufactured are permitted on the public roads of Korea, its country of origin. We have no information whether reducing the speed of the truck to 25 mph would render it impermissible to be driven on Korea's roads. We cannot accept your "opinion" as dispositive of the issue. We have insufficient information to apply this factor to your situation.

Based on the representations in your letters and considering four of the five factors discussed above, we believe that your vehicles are not "motor vehicles." However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the vehicles are in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners.

If you have any questions, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.7/12/00

ID: nht92-7.49

DATE: April 6, 1992

FROM: John J. Jacoby -- President, Cleartec

TO: Samuel K. Skinner -- Secretary, Dept. of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/29/92 from Paul J. Rice to John J. Jacoby (A39; Std. 104; Std. 205)

TEXT:

Safety people everywhere are positively excited about previews of a new vehicle accident avoidance safety feature soon to enter the marketplace.

To improve visibility for safety and comfort, Cleartec presents windshield wiper cleaning systems to work with all wipers on all windshields.

Manufactured into new windshields or applied onto existing windshields by application of easy-to-apply Clean Sweep Strips, self-cleaning, maintenance-free wiper clearing fields are created in the path of the wipers to work whenever the wipers are turned on.

Although inexpensive, Clean Sweep Strips transfer durable and attractive, transparent wiper clearing fields which are intrinsic and complimentary to any windshield, while yet remaining removable.

A brochure is enclosed. If you would like more information, or would like to receive a cost-free,pre-marketing package of Clean Sweep Strips as it will soon become available worldwide, simply write or return an annotated copy of this letter and/or enclose a letterhead with correct address information for return mail.

We believe we have considered and provided for universal use of this product as presented; however, please let us know if your jurisdiction has any other special requirements for allowance of which we are unaware.

Thanking you for your attention and interest, I am very truly yours.

Attachment One page from Clean Sweep brochure. (Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht88-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/22/88

FROM: M. IWASE -- MANAGER TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT. KOITO MFG. CO., LTD.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: INSTALLATION OF TAIL & STOP LAMP ONTO MOVING VEHICLE PART

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/15/88 TO M. IWASE FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 07/30/80 TO DIETMAR M HAENCHEN FROM FRANK BERNDT

TEXT: Dear Sir;

Thank you for your kind consideration which you have extended to us.

We, Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd., would like you to advise us about the tail & stop lamp as shown below;

(DRAWING OMITTED)

1. Lamp "A" having function of tail & stop lamp is fitted onto the moving vehicle part (trank lid, etc.).

2. Lamp "A" meets the min./max. values for both functions of tail & stop specified in FMVSS No. 108 at a design attitude when the moving part is closed.

It is designed that vehicle be driven with its trank lid closed. Therefore, Lamp "A" installed on moving part should be permissible, we think.

Question:

1. Whether such a tail & stop lamp fitted onto moving vehicle part could be permissible or not under FMVSS No. 108.

2. If Lamp "A" is turn signal lamp instead of tail & stop lamp, how about the permission under FMVSS No. 108.

Again, thanking you and awaiting your prompt reply, we remain,

With our best regards,

Yours very truly,

ID: 1985-04.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: EPL Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James L. Loden President, EPL Incorporated 200 Campus Drive, RD Pemberton Farms Research Campus Mt. Holly, NJ 08060

Dear Mr. Loden:

Thank you for your July 16, 1985 letter inquiring about the existence of any Federal safety requirements applicable to your projected sale of heated windshield wiper blades. You also asked if Federal testing or research testing or research is being conducted on windshield wiper systems.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems and No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, which are applicable to new motor vehicles. While these standards do not regulate the heating component of wipers, they do, among other things, require that a defrosting or wiping system clear a minimum percentage of a vehicle's windshield.

In addition, Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, also applies to new motor vehicles. This standard sets limits on the glare from certain metal components, including windshield wiper blades, in the driver's field of view. Its purpose is to reduce the likelihood that unacceptable glare from reflecting surfaces will hinder safe and normal operation of the vehicle. Copies of these three standards are enclosed.

If a new vehicle equipped with your blade did not comply with Standard No. 103, Standard No. 104, or Standard No. 107 due to some aspect of that blade, the sale of that car to the public would be a violation of the prohibition in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act against the sale of noncomplying vehicles.

As to used vehicles, you should be aware that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle under Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Care should be taken that the installation of your product would not have that effect. A rendering inoperative might occur if, for example, your blade were not large enough to enable the wiping system to clear a sufficient area of the windshield. We urge you therefore to ensure that the substitution of your blade for an original equipment blade provided by a vehicle manufacturer would enable the wiping or defrosting system to continue to perform as required by Standard No. 103 and No. 104, and would not produce unacceptable glare in the driver's field of view, as prohibited by Standard No. 107.

Copies of the windshield compliance test reports for Standard Nos 103 and 104 are available from the agency's Technical Reference Division. Copies of these reports can be purchased by contacting Mr. Robert A. Hornickle (202-426-2987).

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

E P L Incorporated 200 Campus Dr. RD 1 Pemberton Farms Research Campus Mt. Holly, NJ 08060

July 16, 1985

Mr. Steven Oesch Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

During a recent conversation, Edward Jetner, Staff Engineer for the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, suggested I contact you for information on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as they apply to a new product we intend to manufacture.

Our company, EPL Incorporated, is starting to manufacture a heated windshield wiper blade. We call it "Thermoblade", and it is designed for use on motor vehicles of all types. Thermoblade is an important safety item as it prevents snow and ice accumulation on the wiper blade and enables it to clean the windshield and provide good visibility for the driver even under the most severe weather conditions.

Is the product we intend to manufacture covered by certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety standards? Has any Federal testing been done, or are any of our Government's testing laboratories involved in any research and development on windshield wiper systems?

Any information you can give us which will help us launch our new product will be very much appreciated. Should you need more information, please call me at 609-261-6000.

Sincerely,

James L. Loden President

ID: nht90-3.41

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 1, 1990

FROM: Rickey Bass -- Q.C. Manager, Terminal Service Co.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re High mounted stop lamp and identification lamp combination.

ATTACHMT: Attached to design drawing of lamp (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-24-90 from P.J. Rice to R. Bass (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Terminal Service Company would like to have your office give us a written interpretation of the current laws, to see if they would prohibit the use of a combination stop and identification lamp. The combination lamp in question would be used on Departme nt of Transportation certified cargo tank motor vehicles.

We realize that FMVSS 108 prohibits combining other clearance lamps with any tail or identification lamp. But, it also says that two or more lamps or reflective devices, and items of associated equipment may be combined if the requirements for each item and associated equipment are met. FMVSS 108 also states the manufacturer is to determine if the function of the equipment is impaired.

Our stop and identification lamp would consist of three (3) separate single compartments, each having its own lens and dual filament bulb, located at the specified location for the identification lamp. A design drawing is enclosed for the purpose of ill ustration.

Terminal Service Company feels that with this design, the function of the identification light, at the rear of the cargo tank will be intact, although when the brake light is illuminated, the identification light will be brighter.

Your assistance would be appreciated.

ID: nht93-6.12

DATE: August 16, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Howard Schecter

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/23/93 from Howard Schecter to Office of Cheif Counsal (Chief Counsel), NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements (49 CFR S571.115). In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that you own a three-wheel motorcycle built with all used parts. The engine and other parts are from a used Corvair passenger car, and additional parts are from used motorcycles. Your letter asks whether your motorcycle must be assigned a vehicle identification number (VIN). The answer is no.

Standard No. 115 applies to new motor vehicles, including motorcycles. NHTSA does not consider your motorcycle as new, since it was built entirely out of used parts. Since Standard No. 115 applies only to new motor vehicles, and NHTSA does not consider your motorcycle to be new, the motorcycle's rebuilder need not, under NHTSA's regulations, assign a VIN to the motorcycle.

Your letter stated that the State of Hawaii's Reconstructed Vehicle Department (RVD) would not register your motorcycle since it has no VIN. Registration procedures for motor vehicles are set by each State, not NHTSA. However, we suggest that you show this letter to the RVD officials to explain that your motorcycle need not be assigned a VIN under NHTSA's regulations.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-4.26

DATE: August 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Chuck Anderson -- Assistant Commissioner for Public Safety, State of Minnesota

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/31/86 from Erika Z. Jones to Clennie H. Murphy, Jr.; Also attached to letter dated 9/27/85 from Jeffrey R. Miller to Charles Pekow

TEXT:

This refers to your recent telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff regarding the applicability of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards to buses used to transport children to and from Head Start facilities.

Please be advised that it remains the opinion of this agency that Head Start facilities are preprimary schools. Therefore, new buses sold to Head Start centers for use in transporting Head Start participants to and from school must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. Enclosed for your information are two opinions previously issued by this office explaining our underlying rationale: Memorandum to Clennie H. Murphy, Jr., Acting Associate Commissioner, Head Start Bureau, dated January 31, 1986; and letter to Mr. Charles Pekow, Editor, Day Care Information Service, Bethesda, MD, dated September 27, 1985. Also enclosed is a coy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, issued jointly by the Federal Highway Administration and this agency. This guideline may be found at 56 Federal Register 19270, dated April 26, 1991.

I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. If you have further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 1984-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd. -- M. Iwase, Manager, Techinical Administration Dept.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Department Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimuzu-shi, Shitzuoka-ken Japan

This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1984, to Mr. Driver of this agency asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Mr. Driver has not been an official of this agency for many years, and in the future, your requests for interpretation should be addressed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Your first question is whether Safety Standard No. 108 permits a two-headlamp system on motorcycles. The answer is yes. Paragraph S.4.1.1.34 specifies the lighting systems permissible on motorcycles. It allows two Type 2D1 or Type 2 (7 in.), or two Type 2B1 or Type 2B headlamps. Under Table IV, if two headlamps are used, they must be disposed symmetrically around the vertical center line. Two non-sealed headlamps meeting the requirements of SAE J584 may also be used, subject to the same mounting restriction. Therefore the system you propose appears acceptable under Standard No. 108.

You have also asked whether the two headlamps may be mounted one atop the other, rather than side by side. While Table IV specifies that a single headlamp must be mounted "on the vertical centerline", requires that two headlamps be disposed symetrically around it. We do not interpret this language as allowing two headlamps to be mounted adjacent to each other on the vertical centerline.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Air-Mail

Mr. E. T. Driver, Director Official of Crash Avoidance Date: June 21, 1984 Motor Vehicle Programs U.S. Department of Transportation Koito Ref. No.84.06.21.02 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Subject: Two Lamp System of Motorcycle Headlamp

Dear Mr. E. T. Driver;

We are now going to carry out engineering design of motorcycle headlamp of two lamp system as illustrated below.

We know well that there is a fact that the motorcycle with two lamp system headlamp has already been on sale in US market.

We would like you to confirm your opinion concerning the legal applicability of the two lamp system of Motorcycle headlamp.

Configuration of Two lamp system Motorcycle headlamp: INSERT GRAPH HERE Longitudinal center plane of Motorcycle

Upper Beam

Lower Bean

Upper Beam Motorcycle headlamp assembly Lower Beam

Motorcycle headlamp units

1. Photometric performance:

1-1) Each headlamp unit has equivalent dia. in dimension and photometric performance to the other and is designed to comply with the photometric requirements of table 1 & 2 of SAE J584 "Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle headlamps "specified in FMVSS No. 108, having two filaments (One is for upper beam and the other is for lower beam).

1-2) As for the combined max. value for the upper beam headlamp, the headlamp unit is optically designed to be less than 75,000 cd.

2. Installation arrangement:

Each headlamp unit is symmetrically installed about the longitudinal center line of Motorcycle.

3. Aiming adjustment mechanism:

Each headlamp unit is designed to be adjusted independently in horizontal and vertical directions

4. Others:

This motorcycle headlamp assembly is designed to conform to all of the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 and SAE J584.

Would you please get us your advice concerning the following questions;

Question:

1. Whether the two lamp system of motorcycle headlamp be permitted legally or not.

2. Additional question in case that the two lamp system of motorcycle headlamp be permitted:

Whether the following installation arrangement be permitted or not.

INSERT GRAPH HERE Vertical arrangment

Longitudinal center plane of Motorcycle

Upon your kind review to the above, your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated, and we remain,

Yours very truly,

M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Dept.

Koito Manufacturing. Co., Ltd.

Shizuoka Works