ID: nht91-7.40

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth Weinstein

TO: James Watson

COPYEE: Area Director of Customs, New York Seaport; Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs Service Headquarters

TITLE: Re United States Customs Service File No. 866522R

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-10-91 from James M. Watson to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6569)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for my opinion of whether a particular vehicle, an e-tant manufactured in Thailand by P.S.N, that you wish import into the United States for your own use as a "farm vehicle," would be considered a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). According to materials you submitted, the e-tant has the appearance of a small flat bed truck. However, since it has a small 11.5 horsepower engine, you believe its top speed would be under 20 mph. You believe that the e-tant should be classified as a "farm vehicle," explaining that you disagree with the U.S. Customs Service classification (NY ruling 866522 dated September 11, 1991) of the e-tant as a motor vehicle. You further explained that the e-tant is generally used as a farm vehicle in Thailand. Based on the information provided in your letter, it is our opinion that the e-tant would be a 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.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold SOLELY for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is 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, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be 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 purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles AND a maximum speed of 20 mph or less.

Your vehicle is not easily classified under any of these groupings. In such circumstances, we are sometimes able to evaluate factors related to how manufacturers/dealers will advertise, market, and service a particular vehicle in the United States. However, these factors are not relevant where a person is importing a single vehicle for his or her own use. I also note that an individual owner's planned use for a vehicle being imported is not determinative of whether the vehicle is a motor vehicle.

We believe that the relevant factors concerning whether the e-tant is considered a motor vehicle are as follows. First, the e-tant has a body configuration similar to a standard truck. Moreover, in the country where it is manufactured for sale, your letter indicates that the vehicle is used on rural highways to carry crops to market in nearby towns and for visiting friends. In addition, since the e-tant closely resembles a standard small truck, it is likely that states would register it for use on the public highways. The only factor you have identified which suggests that the e-tant should not be considered a motor vehicle is its slow speed, which you believe would be under 20 mph. However, NHTSA does not consider slow speed to be a sufficient factor by itself to take a vehicle which otherwise would be considered a motor vehicle outside of that category. Therefore, after considering all of these factors, it is our opinion that the e-tant would be considered a motor vehicle.

If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address.

ID: nht91-7.41

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth Weinstein

TO: Don Weidman -- Manager, Special Projects, The Grote Manufacturing Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-25-91 from Don Weidman to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6709)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 25, 1991, with respect to the applicability of some new requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to "agricultural vehicles and implements when they are traveling on the highways." Specifically you ask whether the requirements of Standard No. 108 or SAE J137 must be complied with when agricultural equipment is in use.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to motor vehicles, which are defined, in pertinent part, by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as vehicles "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." Because the primary use for agricultural vehicles such as farm tractors, combines, and the like is off the public roads, and their use of the public roads is incidental to their intended use, NHTSA does not consider agricultural vehicles to be "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Act. This means that they do not have to conform to Standard No. 108, or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Regulations governing the use of the public roads are issued and enforced by the individual States. We have no knowledge whether any State requires the lighting on agricultural equipment to conform to SAE J137, or to Standard No. 108. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, may be able to answer this question for you.

ID: nht91-7.42

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Sandra Mesh-Witucki -- McGraw, Borchard & Martin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-1-91 from Sandra Mesh-Witucki to Mary Versailles (OCC 6641)

TEXT:

This responds to your November 1, 1991 letter in which you asked for "a certified copy of all rules/standards applicable to (a 1987 Chevrolet Cargo Van Conversion) both before and after conversion, and any other information you feel may be of assistance." Your letter mentioned that you are interested in this information for pending litigation concerning an accident in which this vehicle was involved in which, "(a)llegedly, a rear seat passenger suffered a spinal fracture from the lap belt." In a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff on November 26, 1991, you verified that you are specifically interested in regulations concerning the type of safety belts this vehicle was required to have. The following discussion should clarify NHTSA regulations regarding safety belts.

The safety belt installation requirements for all vehicle types are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). S4.2.1 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after January 1, 1976 and before September 1, 1991. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating positions, lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at all other seating positions, and EITHER meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems OR have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3, requires the manufacturer to install lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts.

Standard No. 208 and all the rest of NHTSA's safety standards are found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. This and all other volumes of the CFR may be purchased by contacting:

Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Phone: (202) 783-3238

Because the CFR is published by the Government Printing Office, that office is the only source for certified copies of the regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mary Versailles at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-7.43

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Terry Semprini -- Executive Director, Cycle Country Accessories Corp.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/23/92 from Paul Jackson Rice (Stephen P. Wood) to Terry Semprini (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

CYCLE COUNTRY ACCESSORIES CORPORATION is working on a new safety light that works in conjunction with the tail lights found on the back of Tractor-Trailers, and Straight Trucks. The light is in a diamond shape 15 1/2" x 15 1/2". The light is positioned at the top of the back doors. As you turn the turn signal right there will be a yellow arrow in the light that will point right. Turn the signal on left and a yellow arrow points left. Put your brake light on and 4 red lights come on. Put your emergency flasher on and the 4 red lights will light up and flash. I have enclosed pictures for your viewing.

We are wanting to know if this type of light is legal to run in all of the United States?

Please contact me with your ruling.

If you have any questions please contact me at 1-800-841-2222.

Looking forward to your response.

ID: nht91-7.44

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: ACTION: General Motors Modified Antitheft Petition

ATTACHMT: Attached to USG 2846 Part III dated 11/18/91 from Robert Rogers to Barry Felrice; Also attached to letter dated 2/7/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert A. Rogers (A39; Part 543)

TEXT:

On November 18, 1991, General Motors Corporation (GM) submitted a letter informing NHTSA of a change in the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system that was installed on the My 1992 Pontiac Bonneville. (GM discovered, through a review, that the information of the second generation "PASS-KEY" had not been forwarded to the agency.) Since the initial petition for the MY 1992 Pontiac Bonneville, but before the start of production, of the MY 1992 Bonneville, a design change had been made to include GM's second generation "PASS-KEY II" theft deterrent system, as standard equipment on this car line and not the original "PASS-KEY" system as described in the petition. GM had previously been granted a partial exemption on the original "PASS-KEY" system for the MY 1992 Bonneville.

Rulemaking has reviewed the changes to the system, and finds that the differences between the "PASS-KEY II" and the original "PASS-KEY," as described below, would qualify for de minimis treatment.

GM has changed the system in which the shut down period of the system would be for three minutes plus or minus 18 seconds, instead of the previous 2 to 4 minutes. GM believes that this is more precise than the prior system. The other change in the system is that the "PASS-KEY II" timer does not reset back to zero if further resistance comparisons are attempted while the decoder module is shut down. GM states that this functional difference will still provide a similar level of theft deterrent performance since the decoder module while in the shut down mode, will ignore any further attempts to start the vehicle by means of a key with an improper pellet resistance during that time, and continuous attempts will result in the module remaining inoperative until the proper key is used.

As stated above, Rulemaking does not believe that these changes are significant enough to warrant submission of a full modification petition by GM and, therefore, would qualify for de minimis treatment. Accordingly, Rulemaking requests a letter granting the change to the antitheft system be forwarded to GM, pursuant to Part 543.9 (j).

Attachment

USG 2846 Part III dated 11/18/91 from Robert A. Rogers to Barry Felrice. (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-7.45

DATE: December 11, 1991

FROM: Frank J. Sonzala-- Senior Vice President, International Transquip Industries, Inc.

TO: Steve Wood -- Chief Council Office, NHTSA

COPYEE: D. Carter; J. Frank Haasbeek

TITLE: Deceptive Labeling of Spring Brakes

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/3/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Frank Sonzala (A39; Std. 121; Std. 106; VSA S 108)

TEXT:

Mr. Richard Carter of NHTSA told me that I should bring this following information to your attention.

It seems that spring brake manufacturers such as Lear Sigler who manufacture the Anchorlok brand spring brake have adopted a practice to add the letters D.O.T. to their chamber housing. Now, this is interpreted by the industry to connote that this type of chamber is D.O.T. approved. We feel that this is misleading and certainly not endorsed by the United States Department of Transportation.

I do not know what can be done about this situation but our customers of the I.T.I. Air Brake Chamber, the Air-Mech are asking us to get D.O.T. on our chambers. Of course, we do not intend to participate in deceptive practices. However, we request that your department send my company a letter explaining how D.0.T. should not be on any chamber and if it is, it should not be interpreted as being approved by D.O.T. or NHTSA.

If you have any questions or comments please give me a call. I have included a rendering of the "Raised D.0.T" inscription on the Anchorlok spring brake chamber casting.

ID: nht91-7.46

DATE: December 13, 1991

FROM: Tony Llama -- President, Davenport Enterprises

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 01/03/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Tony Llama (A39; Part 591)

TEXT:

We have a customer in Ecuador that assembles Fiat automobiles under a franchise from FIAT DO BRAZIL. They have contacted us for the purpose of designing and building an air conditioning unit for this vehicle. In order to do so, we must bring a car to the U.S.A. so that our engineers can work on it.

By means of this letter, we would like to request from you prior written approval of vehicle admission to the U.S.A. for a period not exceeding 90 days, at which time it will be returned to Ecuador.

This vehicle will come on a 20 foot container to our facilities in Dallas, Texas, and at no time will it be driven on the road. Upon completion of our work, it will also be returned on a 20 foot container.

The specifications of this vehicle are as follows:

Make: FIAT Motor No: 7575071 Model: PREMIO Chassis No: E-00091PI004 Engine: 1,600 cc Color: Blue

One 1,100 cc engine will also be sent in a box inside the container, so we can design a compressor mount and drive kit for this engine, since this automobile will be equipped with either engine. This engine number is: 2764999.

In order to speed up the paper work, we are enclosing copies of a previous request that was granted to us. In this case the vehicle was never sent due to problems beyond our control, so the forms were never used.

Since there are other countries bidding for this business, time is of the essence. We would be very grateful if you could send us the authorization as soon as possible.

ID: nht91-7.47

DATE: December 16, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Alan E. Willis -- Senior Transportation Engineer, Franchise Regulation Division, City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-3-91 from Alan E. Willis to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6550)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning the installation of safety shields in 1982 model year and newer taxicabs. According to your letter, the City of Los Angeles plans to require the safety shields in order to deter or prevent crimes against taxicab drivers. The safety shields would be of a bullet resistant design (1/2" thick General Electric "LEXGUARD" or equivalent) complete with side panels, seat back protection and pass-through fare box. You asked whether any safety standards apply to such safety shields. I appreciate the opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

One Federal motor vehicle safety standard, Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, applies directly to interior partitions such as taxicab safety shields, if the partition contains glazing material. The glazing used in taxicab safety shields, including ones that are installed on used vehicles, must meet the requirements of that standard.

In addition, the installation of a safety shield might affect the compliance of a vehicle with a number of other safety standards, including Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, Standard No. 202, Head Restraints, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. If a new vehicle is altered by the installation of a safety shield prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation is required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle complies with all safety standards affected by the alteration.

After the first sale to a consumer, a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

In order to avoid violating this provision, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business which installs a safety shield should ensure, by carefully comparing the safety shield and its planned installation with the requirements of relevant safety standards, that such installation enables the vehicle to continue to comply with all applicable safety standards. Violations of S108(a)(2)(A) are punishable

by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation. I note that section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-7.48

DATE: December 16, 1991

FROM: William R. Willen -- Managing Counsel, Product Legal Group, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/28/92 from Paul Jackson Rice (Stephen P. Wood) to William R. Willen, Esq. (A39; Std. 123)

TEXT:

I am writing to you seeking an interpretation.

FMVSS 123, in section 5.2.1. contains the following language: "if a motorcycle is equipped with a self proportioning, or an antilock braking device utilizing a single control for both front and rear brakes, the control shall be located and operable in the same manner as a rear brake control."

Honda is in the final stages of developing an advanced version of their proportional braking system for motorcycles. It offers:

a) Full proportioning front and rear when utilizing either the front hand control, or the rear foot control.

In order to fully comply with the "letter" of the standard, this system would seem to be out of compliance when the front hand brake is applied.

Honda feels that it is an obvious safety advantage to offer the full extent of proportioning, with "any" brake application! Honda also feels that the authors of 123 did not foresee the possibility of proportioning, being available with the application of the right, front handlebar lever.

Since the "full spirit" of FMVSS 123 is being met, Honda is seeking an interpretation of this system that would permit the use of these advancements. Telephone conversations have taken place between Doug Toms, an advisor on the project, and Steve Wood. Honda stands ready to answer any questions, or provide additional technical detail should that be desired.

Honda will be conducting sales "decision meetings" on Jan. 22, and 23, 1992. It would be most helpful if some "feeling" for your response could be gained by telephone just prior to those dates.

ID: nht91-7.49

DATE: December 18, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Masashi Maekawa -- Director, Technical Division, Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-27-91 from Masashi Maekawa to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6714)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 27, 1991, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to a specific vehicle design.

Your letter depicts a combination tail/stop lamp that would be mounted on the deck lid ("Lamp B"), immediately adjacent to a combination tail/stop lamp that is mounted on the vehicle body ("Lamp A"). Each lamp complies with the requirement for effective projected luminous lens area, but neither complies with photometric requirements. You have asked whether, under S5.1.1.6 it is possible to consider the two adjacent lamps as one lamp for purposes of measuring the photometrics for tail and stop lamps, and, if so, whether the requirements for one or two lighted sections will apply.

S5.1.1.6 covers requirements for replacement stop lamps, and does not appear relevant to our question. We have, however, addressed before the question that you raise. It is not possible to consider the two adjacent lamps as one lamp for purposes of measuring the minimum photometrics required under Standard No. 108. We regard the lamp that is located on the body, Lamp A, as the lamp that must be designed to conform to all applicable requirements of Standard No. 108, including photometrics. In that location, Lamp A meets the requirement that stop/taillamps be located as far apart as practicable, whereas Lamp B would not. The requirements that would apply to Lamp A are those for lamps with a single lighted section. Since your letter indicates that Lamp A does not meet photometric requirements, Lamp A would be a nonconforming lamp. Lamp B is permissible as supplementary lighting equipment and need not meet the photometric or location requirements in order for the vehicle to comply with the standard. Thus, Lamp B would be permissible in its present state. (The sole restriction that Standard No. 108 imposes upon supplementary lighting equipment is that it must not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment; that possibility does not appear to exist in this design, where the two lamps are intended as complementary).