ID: nht90-4.76

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 6, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by S.P.W.

TO: Erika Z. Jones -- Mayer, Brown, & Platt

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-18-90 to S.P. Wood from E.Z. Jones (OCC 5222)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting a confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Stephen Wood of my staff. In that conversation, he informally stated that the attached letter dated January 5, 1990 from Fidelity Tire Manufacturing company c ontained the information necessary to comply with the notification requirements in S5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 (49 CFR 571.119) for tires and rims not listed in the publication of a specified tire and rim association. This letter c onfirms that Fidelity's letter would satisfy the requirements of section S5.1.

Section S5.1 requires that a listing of the rims which may be used with each tire produced by a manufacturer be provided to the public. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the tire will be mounted only on appropriate rims and that the tire will be mounted on vehicles where its load-carrying capacity will be adequate. That section gives manufacturers the option of using the data provided for the tire size and corresponding rims published in certain standardization organization yearbooks o r listing the appropriate information "in a document furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires, to any person upon request, and in duplicate to (NHTSA)." Fidelity's letter which includes the appropriate dimensional and load-carrying data for the tire and rim appears to satisfy this requirement.

I hope this explanation is helpful. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

ID: nht90-4.77

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 7, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by S.P.W.

TO: Takahiro Maeda -- Assistant to the Vice President, Engineering Division, Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-28-90 to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA from Takahiro Maeda (OCC 5275)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of September 28, 1990, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Table IV of the standard establishes a minimum "edge to edge separation distance" between turn signal lamps and tail or stop lamps installed on motorcycles. You have asked whether the edge in question is the outer edge of the lamp assembly itself, or th e edge of the reflector in the lamp.

The minimum edge to edge separation distance is measured from the edge of the illuminated surface of one lamp to another, that is to say, from the edge of the effective projected luminous area of one lens to the edge of the effective projected luminous a rea of the other. It is unclear from the drawing you enclosed of the "tail/brake lamp" whether the edge of its effective projected luminous area of the lens is at the edge of the reflector, or at the edge of the lamp (as appears to be the case with the "turn signal"). If the former, the distance is measured between the edge of the tail/stop lamp reflector to the edge of the turn signal lamp assembly as you have initially indicated.

ID: nht90-4.78

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1990

FROM: Chino O'Hara -- Minority Co-Ordinator, Del Mar Manufacturing Company

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA-NCC

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated January 14, 1991 from Paul Jackson Rice to Chino O'Hara (A37; Std. 108; Std. 121; Std. 302; Std. 105; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

Del Mar Manufacturing Co, has been in Business for over 20 years, we are a Certified Minority Owned Business here in Southern Cal. Our product (HUSKY-ANTI SQUEEK) is a breakthrough in the Automotive Aftermarket Brake Industry. Currently this product is being tested by GENERAL MOTORS, FORD, CHRYSLER, TOYOTA, HONDA, NISSAN and some military installations. The question keeps coming up (DO WE NEED DOT APPROVAL FOR OUR PRODUCT). If you can answer this question in a written response to us it would be appr eciated.

Attachment

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET DEL MAR MANUFACTURING CO. 2713-B N. TOWNE AVE. POMONA, CA. 91767 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE: 714-625-0555 SECTION I-PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION

Part Number: AS-88 Product Name: Husky Brake Anti-SqueekChemical Family: Brake Quite

SECTION II-HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS

Ingredients: % TLVGraphite-Carbon Black: 4.8 --- Aliphatic Solvent : 27.0 400 Aromatic Solvents : 28.0 200

SECTION III-PHYSICAL DATA

Boiling Poin: Deg. F/C 181 F/83 C Specific Gravity: 1.1 Vapor Pressure (MM HG): 33 %Volatile Volume: 68 Vapor Density (AIR=1): 1.3 Evaporation Rate: 1.5Solubility in Water: Miscible Water/oil Dist Coeff: 9 Appearance and Odor: High Viscosity Black Liquid, Slightly Sweet Odor. Physical State: Liquid Freeze Pt.: Deg F/C 10F/-14C Threshold Odor.PPM 5PH: N/A

SECTION IV-FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD

Flammability Classification: Flammable Liquid NFPA Rating: 1,3,0 Flash Point Deg. 54/11 C Extinguishing Media: Extinguish With Dry Chemical Water, ray or Fog Special Fire Fighting Procedures: Use Air Supplied Rescue Equipment in Closed Areas. Cool Exposed Container With Water. Explosive Power: Low Impact Sensitive: NoBurning Rate: Low

SECTION V-HEALTH HAZARD DATA

Threshold Limit Value: 390 PPM Effects of Overexposure: May Cause Dizziness, Light Headache, and Difficulty in Breathing in areas of High Concentration of Vapors. Any Victim Should Seek Air Free of Vapors. Emergency and First Aid Procedures: Eyes, Flush Immediately With Plenty of Waters. Skin, Wash with Soap and Water. If Swallowed, Do Not Induce Vomiting and Contact Physician Immediately.

SECTION VI-REACTIVITY DATA

Stability: Yes Conditions to Avoid: Keep Away From Heat, Sparks, Flames or Sources of Ignition. Incompatibility: Strong Oxidizers Hazardous Decomposition Products: No Hazardous Polymerization: No

SECTION VII-SPILL OR LEAK PROCEDURES

Steps to be Taken in Case Material is Released or Spilled: In Case of Spill: Flush Small Amounts to Sewer With Plenty of Water. Remove All Sources of Ignition, Ventilate Area, Clean up With Absorbent Material Contain and Pick up Waste Material, Put in a Sealed Approved Container. Report Quantity: 10,000 lb. Dispose of Waste In Accordance With Federal, State and Local Regulations.

SECTION VIII-SPECIAL PROTECTION INFORMATION

Respiratory Protection: Use Only in Well Ventilated Areas.

Ventilation-Local: Recommended Mechanical : Required Special : Keep Away From Heat and Flame

Protective Gloves: Vinyl or Leather Solvent Resistant Gloves, Eye Protection : Goggles Other Protective Equipment: Vinyl or Leather Apron & If Ventilation is Inadequate, Wear Approved Respiratory Equipment.

SECTION IX - SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS

Precautions To Be Taken In Handling and Storing: Store in Cool Dry Area, Keep Away From Heat, Sparks, Flames, or Sources of Ignition. Adequate Ventilation Required. Avoid Prolonged or Repeated Breathing of Gas, Fumes, Vapor or Spray Mist. Avoid Prolonged or Repeated Contact With Skin. Do Not Take I nternally. In Case of Accident or Illness, Contact Physician Immediately.

Other Precautions: Keep Out of Reach of Children. Read and Follow Directions on The Product Label.

Neither this data sheet nor any statement contained herein grants or extends any license, express or implied, in connection with patents issued or pending which may be the property of the manufacture or others. The information in this data sheet has bee n assembled by the manufacturer based on its own studies and on the work of others. The manufacturer makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained herein. The manufacturer shall not be liable (regardless of fault) to the vendee, the vendee's employees, or anyone for any direct, special or consequential damages arising out of or in connection with the accuracy, completeness, adequacy, or furnishing of such information.

BRAKE ANTI-SQUEEK APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS STEP 1 : DISASSEMBLY

A : Remove pads from caliper assembly. B : Sand pad surface using a light to medium sand paper or emery cloth. This will remove the glaze (on used pads). STEP 2 : CLEANING

A : Spray (clean) pad surface liberally with brake cleaner. This removes all contaminants from the pad surface. Let dry completely, approximately one minute. STEP 3 : BRAKE ANTI-SQUEEK APPLICATION

A : Heat metal backing plate until lining is hot to open pores in the lining. Soak pads in brake anti-squeek for 10 minutes face down to allow solution to penetrate the pads. Note: Metal backing plate must be heated up to promote faster drying. STEP 4 : REASSEMBLY & INSTALLATION

When pad surfaces are compltely dry, assemble and reinstate brake assembly.

STEP 5 : TESTING THE BRAKES

It should be noted that brakes will GRAB & GROAN tremendously during the first two or three stops. This is normal. USE HUSKY BRAKE ANTI-SQUEEK, EVERYTIME YOU DO A BRAKE JOB.

Subject: "Husky Brake Anti-squeek (HBAS)" "cure for noisy, nervous brakes" Thank you for stopping at our booth.

The Del Mar manufacturing Co. started business in July 1972 with idea to manufacture and distribute the finest line of automotive chemicals and tire sealing products available at very competative prices. Now after 18 years in business we have reached th is goal of having the highest quality in products available throughout the country for the automobile, bicycle and motorcycle industries. Our products include tire sealers for almost all kinds of tires, brake anti-squeek for disc or regular brakes, D-gu m and Saf-T-Dip: a carburetor parts cleaner and fiberglass metal cleaner and polish. We welcome your orders and look forward to doing business with you.

We have nationwide W.D program for our very unique product "HUSKY BRAKE ANTI-SQUEEK". We have manufacturing representatives in all states except east coast and south eastern states.

Unlike many other jelly type products which are applied to the back of the plate, HBAS is applied directly on the pad surface which will stop BRAKE SQUEEKING and will produce a surface that gives better braking.

The following are unique features of HBAS: * Quiets noisy brakes. * Will stop brake squeaking and eliminate pad squeal. * Produce a surface that gives better braking. * Recommended for use on old or new pads, either metallic, semi-metallic, or organic or non-asbestos organic.

Here is some suggested approach that shows you why you should use HUSKY BRAKE ANTI-SQUEEK.

1. 87% of all brake job "comebacks" are squeek related. 2. Husky brake anti-squeek should be applied to all brake jobs as "insurance" against squeek comebacks. 3. One can of HBAS will treat 8-10 brake jobs making it a very in- expensive item to the mechanic, less than $0.50 per brake job. (average brake job - $185.00).

This product has been accepted by a great number of new and used car dealers and many big name chains specializing in brake jobs throughout the unites states. We invite you to try this effective solution to a particularly irritating source of noise poll ution. You will be amazed to see the results of your brakes after HBAS application.

This product has been endorsed by top two undercar distributors, TRUSTAR and CYGNUS for their members, private label under their name.

Thank you very much for your time. Please don't hesitate to call us for any question you may have.

BRAKE SQUEAKS DRIVING YOU NUTS !!! Nationally 28% of the brake jobs done come back, of which 87.0% are from squeaks.

The reason is because of lack of time, training and competitive cost of the brake job.

A large part of the squeaks are caused from the rotor and brake pad vibration. Squeaks are vibrations.

To help you understand more fully, think of the rotor being trued up by grinding away the rotor surface from the center to the outside edge of the rotor. By doing so, even on a fine cut, you leave grooves very much like a phonograph record has.

When you install the brake pads face surface to the rotor with groves, the brake pad is softer than the rotor and the rotor cuts grooves in the brake pad. When the rotor turns, the grooves and the brake pads try to follow the rotor grooves to the outsid e edge of the rotor, very much like the record player arm and needle follows the grooves in the phonograph record. We call this record effect, causing a squeak.

With the brake pad it can only travel so far and then snaps back and starts all over again until the rotor and brake pad wear together to a smooth working surface. It takes about 3000 to 5000 miles for this to happen.

This is by far the largest cause of squeaks in the brakes today.

To help correct this , there is a product called "HUSKY", it is an anti- squeek compound, made by Del Mar Manufacturing Company.

It is a compound that is applied to the face surface of the brake pad which soaks into the padding material and has graphite in it to help the pad to slip and not drag on the rotor, therefore eliminating the pad and rotor wearing together to cause a sque ak.

For a few cents per brake job, you can be assured that your customer's brake job will not come back with that all too frequent squeak that cost you time and money and most of all your customers trust you did the job right the first time.

Attachment

One page advertisement for Husky Brake Anti-Squeek (Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht90-4.79

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1990

FROM: Robert H. Jones -- President, Triple J Enterprises, Inc.

TO: Clive Van Orden -- Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Ref O-3J005

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Congressman Ben Blaz; Also attached to letter dated 7-6-89 from Bob Jones to Congressman Ben Blas; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-90 from Robert H. Jones to Director, Office of Vehicl e Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 3-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert H. Jones (A37; VSA Sec. 103(8)); Also attached to letter dated 1-22-91 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden (OCC 5733)

TEXT:

I am indebted to Congressman Ben Blaz for your name and area of responsibility.

I am enclosing some correspondence that will give you some details of our problem. In a nut shell, we want the Federal Government to enforce the FMVSS and FMCSR regulation in the CNMI or wave them completely until such time they are ready and able to im plement and enforce them.

As you may know, there are no pollution problems on Saipan, Tinian or Rota and the speed limit is 25 in most places, 35 maximum. I doubt that it is advantageous to the CNMI residents to pay the extra 3 or $400 for automobile EPA and Safety features that are not needed.

Governor Guerrero has taken a position that these regulations are not needed or desired. I agree with that position 100%. But, I have bigger problems with the regulations being, so called, applicable and not monitored or enforced.

ID: nht90-4.8

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 14, 1990

FROM: Loren Thomson -- Thomson & Weintraub

TO: Dorothy R. Nakama -- Rule Making Attorney, United States Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-14-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Loren Thomson (A37; Std. 205; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I represent the Glass Specialty Companies. They, as well as others in the glass repair and replacement industry have concerns with the types of repair being afforded by some members of the industry and with the replacement of original equipment, automob ile glass, with substandard glass.

Edward H. Barnes, the president of Glass Specialty with whom you have talked, indicates to me that you've indicated that the Federal Motor Vehicle Standard, No. 205, is not specific upon standards with respect to the repair or replacement of automobile g lass. The only standard being that the repair or replacement must not leave the vehicle, "inoperable," or render it so.

Our position is that if a windshield or a side glass is likely to shatter or distort the vision of an operator, the vehicle is indeed "inoperable."

We would respectfully request an interpretive letter from your department of what the term "render inoperable" means in safety standard no. 205 as regards a chipped, cracked, or broken windshield.

If you have any questions on the matter, please direct them to me.

ID: nht90-4.80

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joe W. Humphrey

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-9-90 to P.J. Rice from J.W. Humphrey

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of November 9, 1990, with respect to the center high-mounted stop lamp.

You have asked if it is acceptable to add amber turn signal lamps to each side of the center stop lamp. The answer is yes, if the turn signal lamps are separate from the stop lamp. Under the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting, the center stop lamp cannot be combined with any other lamp or reflective device.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht90-4.81

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Danny Pugh -- Engineering Manager, Utilimaster Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-13-90 to Chief Counsel, NHTSA from Danny Pugh (OCC 5214)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). More specifically, you asked about the requirements for safety belts at the various seating positions in vehicles with a gross vehic le weight rating under 10,000 pounds that you called "van conversions."

You first asked whether a "van conversion" would be classified as a passenger car, truck, or multipurpose passenger vehicle. Vehicles commonly called "vans" may be classed in four different vehicle categories (set forth at 49 CFR S571.3) for the purpose s of our safety standards, depending on the configuration of the particular "van." Most cargo vans are classified as "trucks" under our safety standards, because those vehicles are "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpos e equipment." Most passenger vans are classified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles," because they do not meet the definition of a "truck" but are constructed on a truck chassis." Those vans that have eleven or more designated seating positions are cl assified as "buses" because they are "designed for carrying more than 10 persons. Finally, one minivan (the Nissan Axxess) was certified by its manufacturer as a "passenger car" because it was "designed for carrying 10 persons or less."

Additionally, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifica tion before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. If you are interested in the appropriate classification for a particular van conver sion, we will offer our tentative opinion if you will provide us with detailed information on the van conversion in which you are interested.

You next asked on what date safety belts were required in "van conversions," what type of safety belts, and at what locations those belts were required. As explained above, we do not class vehicles as "van conversions" for the purposes of our safety sta ndards. If the vans were classed as passenger cars, passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at the front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position in the car. Beginning December 11, 1989, passenger cars were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at both front and rear outboard seating positions, with either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating p osition. Since September

1, 1989, all passenger cars are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection for outboard front-seat occupants.

Multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less manufactured on or after July 1, 1971 were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at the front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder o r lap-only safety belts at every other seating position in the vehicle. Beginning September 1, 1991, vans classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles or trucks (other than motor homes) must have lap/shoulder belts at both front and rear outboard seati ng positions, with either lap or lap/shoulder belts at all other seating positions. Motor homes manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 will continue to be required to have lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulde r or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position. In addition, effective September 1, 1991 vans must meet dynamic crash test injury criteria for the front outboard seating positions.

If the vans were classed as buses, buses manufactured on or after July 1, 1971 were required to be equipped with either a lap/shoulder or a lap-only safety belt at the driver's seating position. Beginning September 1, 1991, buses with a gross vehicle we ight rating of 10,000 pounds or less (except school buses) must be equipped, with lap/shoulder belts at all front and rear outboard seating positions, and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position.

Also, the agency has proposed extending the automatic crash protection requirements mentioned above to these other vehicle classifications.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-4.82

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: M.J.P. Ravier -- R&D Director, Valeo

TITLE: Re Your ref 861 M 90

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-13-90 to P.J. Rice from J.P. Ravier and Guy Dorleans (OCC 5304); Also attached to letter dated 7-30-90 to J.P. Ravier from Kathleen Demeter

TEXT:

This is in further reply to your letter of July 13, 1990, with respect to whether your "Aiming concept for headlamps, Solution 2" is acceptable under paragraph S7.7.5.2 On-vehicle aiming of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Ms. DeMeter of t his Office has previously addressed your request for confidentiality.

The headlamp aiming concept consists of a spirit level affixed to the reflector, and has its axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. Correct vertical aim is accomplished by ensuring that the bubble in the spirit level is centered at zero. Correct horizontal aim is ensured through a coaxial screw and nut with markings which align with markings on the vehicle body. The system bears graduations that accord with those imposed by S7.7.5.2.

As Valeo was informed when the device was demonstrated to members of this agency on June 29, 1990, the concept is an acceptable vehicle headlamp aiming device under S7.7.5.2. It is designed to meet the vertical aim requirements of S7.7.5.2(a)(1) and the horizontal aim requirements of (a)(2). We are pleased to provide a confirmation in writing.

ID: nht90-4.83

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase -- General Manager, Technical Administration Department, Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-20-90 to Paul Jackson Rice from M. Iwase (OCC 5458)

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter of November 20, 1990 with respect to "interpretation and/or petition" concerning combination headlighting systems.

Koito has asked about the permissibility of two or four lamp headlighting systems in which the upper beam would be provided by integral beam headlamps, and the lower beam by replaceable bulb headlamps.

The systems you describe would not be permissible under Standard No. 108, which allows only the three types of headlighting systems that you mention. Integral beam headlighting systems must be comprised of integral beam headlamps which, by definition, a re headlamps other than sealed beam or replaceable bulb headlamps. Replaceable bulb headlighting systems are those that incorporate the standardized replaceable light sources listed in Standard No. 108.

We are transmitting your request to the Office of Rulemaking, for consideration as a petition for rulemaking.

ID: nht90-4.84

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 14, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Roger C. Fairchild -- Shutler and Low

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-5-90 from R.C. Fairchild to P.J. Rice (OCC 5287)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for my opinion of whether a particular vehicle (the Pinzgauer) would be considered a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. When NHTSA previously considered this question, we stated in a March 25, 1982 letter to Mr. Leonard Fink that the Pinzgauer would be considered to be a motor vehicle, based on the information that was available to the agency at that time. However, that letter also stated that the agency would be willing to reconsider this conclusion if additional information were provided regarding the vehicle's marketing, advertising, and actual use. Your recent letter set forth three additional factors that you suggested might lead the agency to change its previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer was a motor vehicle. As explained in detail below, this agency reaffirms the previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer appears to be a motor vehicle.

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 vehicl es and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a ma ximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use.

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". Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

Vehicles such as the Pinzgauer are not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, the Pinzgauer is obviously designed to have substantial off-road capabilities, as evidenced by high ground clearance, deep water fording capabilit ies, and all-wheel drive. According to its manufacturer, 95 percent of the annual production of Pinzgauers is purchased by armed forces worldwide. These factors suggest that the Pinzgauer should not be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, the available information shows the Pinzgauer is suitable for use on-road. The vehicle has a top speed of nearly 70 miles per hour. Page 4 of Enclosure 1 of your letter shows that the Pinzgauer is equipped with turn signals and states that the power st eering minimizes steering effort "both in difficult terrain and when parking." Page 4 of Enclosure 3 with your letter describes the serviceability of the Pinzgauer "with ordinary on- and off-road usage." These factors suggest that the vehicle is design ed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, which suggests that it should be classified as a motor vehicle.

In instances where the agency is asked whether something is a motor vehicle, when the vehicle has both on-road and off-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, NHTSA has ap plied five factors to reach its conclusion. These factors are:

1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

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

3. 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.

4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles.

5. 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.

When NHTSA previously considered whether the Pinzgauer should be considered a motor vehicle, the available information regarding these factors showed that the manufacturer had equipped the vehicle with side marker lights, the manufacturer expected the ve hicle to be used on-road, and that it would be sold by dealers that also sell vehicles that are clearly motor vehicles.

In your letter, you enclosed some additional information and brochures from the manufacturer that show the manufacturer continues to expect Pinzgauers to be used both on- and off-road. Since the manufacturer does not now expect to sponsor the vehicle's sale in the U.S., no information is available on the anticipated dealers. The additional information enclosed with your letter did not specifically address any factors on

which no information was previously available to NHTSA. Hence, the agency has no basis for changing its previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer appears to be a motor vehicle.

You suggested three reasons that might lead the agency to reverse its previous conclusion. First, you suggested that the 6-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer has a unique body configuration which distinguishes it from typical, on-road vehicles and makes i t particularly well suited to off-road use. You correctly noted that the agency's 1982 letter addressed both the 4-wheeled and 6-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer. However, for the purposes of this analysis, there is no attribute of the 6-wheeled versio n that would lead the agency to conclude that it should be classified differently than the 4-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer. Many vehicles that are clearly motor vehicles have 6 wheels. In all other respects, the 4- and 6-wheeled Pinzgauers have simi lar on-road capabilities, including a top speed of more than 65 miles per hour.

Second, you suggested that NHTSA concluded that the Unimog is not a "motor vehicle" in a February 7, 1984 letter, and that the Unimog and Pinzgauer are comparable vehicles. In the February 7, 1984 letter to Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber to which you refer, NHTSA stated that it had no basis for changing its previous conclusion that the Unimog was not a "motor vehicle." NHTSA also noted that this conclusion was based upon the assumptions that Unimog vehicles would continue to be marketed through dealers of farm machinery and heavy equipment and that Unimog vehicles would have a label affixed stating that the Unimog is not manufactured for highway use. In other words, the information available for Unimog (especially regarding factors number 4 and 5 above) was s ufficient to lead the agency to conclude that it was not a motor vehicle, even though Unimogs are operationally capable of on-road use. By way of contrast, either no information is available for Pinzgauer vehicles regarding the five factors identified a bove or, if information is available for a factor, it suggests that the Pinzgauer should be treated as a motor vehicle. Since the Pinzgauer is operationally capable of on-road use, and there is no indication that the manufacturer does not intend for it to spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA reaffirms its previous statement that these vehicles appear to be "motor vehicles," within the meaning of the Safety Act.

Third, you suggested that NHTSA's 1982 conclusion did not include a consideration of the primary design intent of the Pinzgauer for military purposes and the high percentage of its total sales to the military. NHTSA's 1982 conclusion and this reconsidera tion both are addressed only to the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer. The military versions of the Pinzgauer would not be subject to the safety standards if their sales satisfied 49 CFR S571.7(c). In both the 1982 and this examination of whether the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer are motor vehicles, the agency fully considered the substantial off-road capabilities of these vehicles. However, absent indications that the manufacturer does not intend the Pinzgauer to spend substantial peri ods of time on-road, NHTSA concluded in 1982, and reaffirms at this time, that the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer appear to be "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or

need some additional information on this topic, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.