ID: 23832.drn

Dietmar K. Haenchen, Process Leader
Safety Affairs and Vehicle Testing
Volkswagen
Mail Code 3C02
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326





Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your December 13, 2001, letter asking about S4.2.2 of Standard No. 114, Theft protection. You ask whether Volkswagen's proposed design for an "override device to permit key removal in the event of electrical failure or which would permit moving the transmission from the PARK position after the ignition key has been removed" would meet the conditions in S4.2.2 and thus be allowed. As explained below, our answer is no.

The Requirements

Standard No. 114 requires each vehicle to have a key-locking system which, when the key is removed, prevents the normal activation of the engine or motor, and prevents steering and/or forward self-mobility of the vehicle (S4.2). S4.2.1 of the standard requires the key-locking system in vehicles with automatic transmissions with a "park" position to prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in park or becomes locked in park as the direct result of removing the key. However, S4.2.2 provides that:

(a) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, provided that steering is prevented upon the key's removal, each vehicle specified therein may permit key removal when electrical failure of this system (including battery discharge) occurs or may have a device which, when activated, permits key removal. The means for activating any such device shall be covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device. The covering surface shall be removable only by use of a screwdriver or other tool.

(b) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key. The device shall either be operable:

(1) By the key, as defined in S3; or

(2) By another means, provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed from the ignition, and provided that the means for activating the device is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device. The covering surface shall be removable only by use of a screwdriver or other tool.

Your Question

You ask whether:

an override device located behind the vehicle ashtray, which can be removed without the use of tools, would comply if after the ashtray has been removed, the override device is accessible only by the use of a tool, such as a pen or screwdriver. In such a system, the override device would be located in an opening accessible only when the ashtray has been removed, but the opening is so narrow and deeply recessed, that a person cannot activate it without reaching into the opening with a tool such as a screwdriver or a pen or a similar device.

You further state:

Volkswagen believes that this proposed system falls within the provisions of S4.2.2 since the override device is not visible until an opaque object, the ashtray, is removed and after that object is removed, the device itself can only be actuated with the use of a tool.

Our Answer

We do not interpret S4.2.2(a) or (b) as permitting the design. Those sections require the device to be covered by a non-transparent surface that is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other tool. The ashtray is removable without the use of a tool. Assuming for the purpose of this letter that the ashtray qualifies as a non-transparent surface specified in S4.2.2(a) or S4.2.2(b)(2), your design nonetheless does not meet the standard because the ashtray can be removed without the use of a tool.

S4.2.2(b) was adopted in order to prevent vehicle rollaway, and to ensure that children are not be able to move the transmission shift lever when the key is not in the vehicle. (See final rule published on March 26, 1991 (58 FR 12464)). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) stated in the preamble to that final rule that keyless overrides must be child-proof:

A second way to prevent access by children and thus vehicle rollaway is to permit key-less overrides that are not visible and are "child-proof." After reviewing suggested designs, the agency has determined that a key-less override could prevent activation by a child if it is covered by a surface that, when installed, prevents activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a tool such as a screwdriver. An emergency override that is visible and accessible to children such as an uncovered one located on the transmission console would not be child-proof and thus would not comply with section S4.2.2(b). To ensure further that young children cannot easily gain access to the override, a surface that could be removed with a person's hands alone would not be permissible. [T]he agency has determined that such requirements are necessary to ensure that children cannot easily override the transmission shift lock and thus shift the transmission lever. (See 58 FR at 12467)

The ashtray can be easily removed by a person's hands alone, which is contrary to the requirements of the standard. While you state that the override device would be located in an opening that is "narrow and deeply recessed," the standard requires a "child-proof" cover to the device. That the override device needs to be actuated by use of a screwdriver or pen or similar device does not satisfy the requirement concerning the ability of children to access the device. Further, once the ashtray has been removed, a curious child could easily poke a pen or part of a toy into the opening, creating a potential for the harm that NHTSA sought to prevent when it adopted S4.2.2.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:114
d:2/6/02

ID: 23833.ztv

Mr. Lee M. Calkins
Quality Manager
Canfield Equipment Service, Inc.
22077 Mound Road
Warren, MI 48091





Dear Mr. Calkins:

This is in reply to your letter of December 14, 2001, asking for interpretations of 49 U.S.C. 30122 and 49 CFR 571.108, in connection with equipping a law enforcement vehicle with "blackout lighting."

You reported that "police agencies request that vehicles be equipped with manually operated switches to disable brake/turn and backup lights either singly or combined along with disabling one headlamp with a similar switch." You stated that "(t)his is to protect an officer who is undercover on stakeout or following a suspect." You have enclosed a warning by Federal Signal Corporation dated December 5, 2001, which states that "disabling the brake lights on a vehicle . . . violates the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards."

You have asked the following questions:

"1. Please define 'make inoperative.'"

We have not formally defined "make inoperative," but have applied the phrase to specific fact situations in numerous interpretation letters. We shall answer your question by applying it to certain situations that have arisen under 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) states that "A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard." The phrase "make inoperative" includes the disabling of a device or element of design so that it does not perform its function, such as, with reference to Standard No. 108, disconnection of a lighting device. We have also construed "make inoperative" to encompass any modification of a lamp that might create a noncompliance with the original equipment requirements of Standard No. 108, such as transforming a steady-burning lamp into one that flashes. The phrase also encompasses any modification to an item of vehicle equipment other than a lamp which affects the performance of an item of required lighting equipment, such as alterations to the vehicle body which affect the visibility of lamps at angles specified in Standard No. 108 that the lamps must meet when installed on vehicles.

"2. Please define 'emergency lighting devices.'"

We have not formally defined "emergency lighting devices" either. We understand them to be lighting equipment that is not original equipment required by Standard No. 108, such as strobe lights or flashing red lights. This is in accord with the interpretations you mention in which we considered that flashing lamps were emergency lighting devices. Flashing lights are used on municipal vehicles in motion to indicate to other motorists that the vehicle is proceeding on an emergency mission which has priority over that of other traffic. Flashing lights are used on municipal vehicles at rest to indicate the presence of a potential hazard on or at the side of the road.

"3. Would the addition of these functions [for "blackout lighting"] place the vehicle into non-conformance?"

Yes. There is a specific requirement in S5.5.4 that the stop lamps be activated upon application of the service brakes. In addition, S5.5.7 requires the tail lamps (and other lamps) to be illuminated when the headlamps are activated. Activation of other lighting equipment is covered in appropriate SAE Standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Thus, alteration of a vehicle to equip it with a switch that would allow disabling of any lighting function would, in our view, create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

"4. If non-conformance occurs, would the temporary nature of it allow the non-conformance to be treated as stated in the reply to Mr. [Larry] Hughson [dated July 30, 2001]?"

No. We see a clear distinction between the performance of lamps so that they flash and disabling them so that they do not perform. Although not clearly described in the Hughson letter, we surmised that police vehicles were equipped with a system that flashed the headlamps, stop lamps, and backup lamps. The clear purpose of this temporary alteration of performance is to increase the conspicuity of police vehicles so that they may proceed appropriately under the circumstances. There is the opposite intent in the system you describe; lighting equipment would be switched off and no visual cue other than reflex reflectors would be furnished to other motorists either when the vehicle was at rest or in motion. We would not extend the Hughson interpretation to "blackout lighting."

"5. Would having an OEM offer these options be acceptable? Or, would the States have to perform these modifications after purchase?

We do not believe that a vehicle manufacturer could certify compliance of a vehicle with Standard No. 108, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30115, with the switches you describe installed as original equipment. The manufacturer of the switches could not install them without violating Section 30122. Under 49 U.S.C. 30165(a), such a person violating Section 30122 is liable for a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $15,000,000 for any related series of violations.

The prohibition of Section 30122 does not extend to any person other than a "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business." This means that a purchaser such as a State or municipality could perform these modifications after purchase if the modifications were performed by an employee of the State or municipality, without violating Section 30122. We note that Federal Signal Corporation's Safety Warning is addressed to "users" of equipment that can disable stop lamps, indicating that the equipment was not installed by the manufacturer of the vehicle or equipment.

"6. If the interpretation does not allow for these functions in their present form, what suggestions would you make that could allow for these functions in the market place (e.g.) headlamp switch reset or other device?"

We understand the rationale behind disabling a headlamp, in order to alter the appearance of a surveillance vehicle, and disabling other lamps so that they will not alert a suspect in the event of inadvertent activation. However, the failure of these lamps to perform their intended functions does raise safety issues. Moreover, faced with the need to respond instantly to changed circumstances, such as the need to pursue a suspect, the driver may fail to throw the switches to restore the lighting equipment to its normal use. We do not have any suggestions.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108

ID: 23847.ztv

Captain Bruce Bugg
Special Projects Coordinator
Law Enforcement Division
Georgia Department of Motor Vehicle Safety
P.O.Box 80477
Conyers, GA 30013-8047





Dear Captain Bugg:

We are replying to your letter of December 13, 2001, and to your e-mails of December 21 and December 27, 2001, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

The primary issue that concerns you is the mounting height of retroreflective sheeting on the side of tank trailers. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 states that the tape shall be located "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface at the stripe centerline." The latter dimension is the equivalent of 60 inches. The drawing of a tank trailer shown in Figure 30-4 of Standard No. 108 depicts the sheeting at a height above 60 inches. However, at a mounting height of 60 inches, the sheeting will be canted downwards. In the case that prompted your letter, the tape on a trailer certified to Standard No. 108 had the sheeting located at approximately 74 inches above the road surface.

We e-mailed you a copy of an interpretation of this Office, dated October 14, 1994, to Victor Larson. We advised Mr. Larson that manufacturers of conspicuity material certify its performance on a vertical plane and that therefore the material should be mounted on a vertical plane or as close to it as the trailer shape allows. If that vertical mounting area was higher than 1525 mm, we would consider that the conspicuity material had been mounted "as close as practicable" to the maximum specified mounting height. The conspicuity material that is mounted approximately 74 inches above the road surface, as shown in photos attached to your e-mail of December 21, 2001, appears appropriately located within the meaning of our interpretation to Mr. Larson.

Citing the need for clarity with the advent of the corresponding conspicuity requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (49 CFR 393.13), in your e-mail of December 27, 2001, you asked two additional questions:

"1. If a cargo tank trailer does NOT have a frame or other suitable surface below the 1525 mm (60 inch) height, is it permissible for the conspicuity treatment on the side of the trailer to be mounted at a height above 1525 mm (60 inch) and still meet the practicability requirement?"

Yes. As the Larson letter indicates, if a trailer does not have a vertical mounting surface within the 375 mm (15 inch) - 1525 mm (60 inch) range, the manufacturer must locate the side conspicuity material at the height that is as close as practicable to that range while allowing the treatment to be mounted vertically.

"2. If a cargo tank DOES have a frame or other suitable surface within the 375 mm (15 inch) - 1525 mm (60 inch) range, is a trailer with the conspicuity treatment above the 1525 mm (60 inch) height in violation of the requirements of 49 CFR Sec. 571.108 S5.7?"

If a frame or other vertical mounting surface exists within the range specified in S5.7, a vehicle with its conspicuity treatment above 1525 mm would not comply with the standard.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.2/4/02

ID: 23871.jeg

Mr. Philip M. Headley
Chief Engineer, Advanced Technologies
Continental Teves
4141 Continental Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Headley:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135. You stated that Continental Teves has developed a system which uses the ABS hydraulic pump to supplement the driver's braking effort in the event of a vacuum booster failure. The system is able to recognize the booster failure and meter hydraulic fluid from the ABS pump to the wheel brakes in response to the driver's pedal force. You are concerned, however, that the driver may not recognize that the vacuum boost failure has occurred, since the brakes may appear to operate normally. Consequently, the driver may not have the vacuum booster problem repaired. A subsequent malfunction of the ABS system could then render the vehicle unable to meet the failed boost requirements of Standard No. 135.

You stated that you believe the prudent action in this case would be to light the brake telltale to alert the driver of the problem. You asked whether this would be permissible under Standard No. 135, given that booster failure is not one of the specified conditions for which the brake telltale is required to be illuminated. As discussed below, the answer to your question is yes.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided in your letter.

As you noted in your letter, we have previously addressed a similar question from General Motors (GM) in the context of the requirements of Standard No. 105. (Letter to Stephen E. Selander, Esq., dated April 29, 1992.) S5.3.1 of that standard required a brake telltale to illuminate when there was a gross loss of hydraulic pressure (or, alternatively, a drop in fluid level), a total functional electrical failure in the antilock or variable proportioning brake system, and when the parking brake was applied. GM stated that a brake telltale on a planned vehicle would illuminate under these prescribed conditions. That company indicated, however, that a diagnostic capability would also exist to detect other faults in the brake system, and requested the agency's concurrence that S5.3.1 permitted illumination of the brake telltale when other faults were detected which increased the likelihood of a substantial degradation in brake system performance.

We noted that while Standard No. 105 required that a brake telltale be provided which activated under certain specified conditions, it did not expressly state whether the required telltale may also be activated under other conditions. We provided our opinion that the telltale may also activate under other conditions so long as such activation does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required telltale or otherwise defeat its purpose.

We noted that the purpose of the brake telltale was to warn the driver of one of two conditions: (1) the parking brake was applied (and hence should be released before driving), or (2) the brake system had a significant fault which should be corrected. Since the additional conditions for activation which GM contemplated would represent significant brake system faults which should be corrected, it was our opinion that activation of the brake telltale under such conditions would not in any way defeat the purpose of the brake telltale.

We believe the rationale of our interpretation to GM is directly applicable to the question you ask about the very similar brake telltale requirements of Standard No. 135.

S5.5 of Standard No. 135 requires one or more brake telltales to be provided which activate under two types of specified conditions: (1) the parking brake is applied, and (2) the brake system has a significant fault which should be corrected. Since the additional condition for which Continental Teves contemplates activation of the brake telltale also represents a significant fault in the brake system which should be corrected, it is our opinion that activation under that condition would not in any way defeat the purpose of the brake telltale, and is permissible under Standard No. 135.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:135
d.5/30/02

ID: 23894.ztv

Mr. Roger Williams
3140 S. Tropical Trail
Merritt Island, FL 32952





Dear Mr. Williams:

This is in reply to your letter of December 13, 2001, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with whom you had spoken previously.

As we understand it, you wish to buy a Land Rover, in England, that was manufactured between 1967 and 1975. You would remove the old body and place a new body on the "unrestored" chassis, retaining the original "drive line and engine." The "new" body could be from a new 2001 or 2002 Land Rover, or from a used or salvage Land Rover. We understand that you would then import the Land Rover into the United States. You stated that the vehicle would be imported for your personal use and that you are "not a vehicle business." You are interested in knowing how the laws that we administer would affect your plan.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that we administer apply to any motor vehicle manufactured on or after January 1, 1968. However, under 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(9), a person may import into the United States "a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old" without the need to conform it to the applicable FMVSS, i.e., those in effect at the time of its manufacture. Thus, any Land Rover manufactured between 1967 and 1975 is "at least 25 years old," and eligible for importation under this exclusion.

The question is whether the addition of a new or newer used body on the existing 1967-75 chassis affects the exclusion afforded by Section 30112(b)(9). Under a long-standing line of interpretations of this agency, the substitution of a new body on a used chassis alone does not result in the creation of a "new" motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS, assuming that the vehicle continues to be titled and registered with its original model year. Thus, under the scheme you outline, the 1967-75 Land Rover with a different body and unmodified chassis could be imported without the need to conform it to the FMVSS.

We contrast this with the situation where refurbishment of a 1967-75 chassis occurs before importation. The substitution of new chassis parts for the original ones may reach a point where, in combination with the newer vehicle body, the overall vehicle itself could be regarded as newly manufactured, rather than one manufactured in 1967-75. In this event, the 25-year exclusion would no longer allow the vehicle to be imported free of the obligation to meet U.S. safety requirements. In a similar situation, we advised John Harland on September 29, 1999, that his extensive rebuilding of 1974 Land Rovers using both new parts and parts from other used Land Rovers would result in the creation of "new" motor vehicles subject to contemporary FMVSS and which could not be imported as vehicles "at least 25 years old."

You have also asked "may the existing engine and transmission be excluded from shipment to have it rebuilt in the U.K. and shipped at a later date?" A vehicle without an engine and transmission is considered to be an assemblage of parts. Some FMVSS apply to individual parts as well as to motor vehicles. Those individual components that are subject to the FMVSS must conform in order to be imported. For multipurpose passenger vehicles such as the Land Rover, these components are brake hoses, lighting equipment, brake hoses, tires, rims, glazing, and seat belt assemblies. There are no FMVSS that apply to engines and transmissions, and these items of equipment could be rebuilt and imported at a later date. Please note, however, that the completed vehicle would be required to comply with state and local requirements for registration.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591
d.2/22/01

ID: 23912.ztv

Mr. Denis Igoe
Automotive Lighting
47000 Liberty Drive
Wixom, MI 48393





Dear Mr. Igoe:

This is in reply to your fax of January 16, 2002, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it pertains to visually-optically aimable (VOA) headlamps.

You identified yourself as working in the automotive industry" for a "forward lighting manufacturer." With respect to a headlamp currently in production, you wrote that "a proposal for cost savings is to eliminate the horizontal VHAD and the ability to adjust in the horizontal." As you see it, "the issue becomes: through vehicle service it is possible a new headlamp w/o horizontal adjustment (& VHAD) could be paired with an old headlamp with horizontal adjustment (& VHAD) on the very same vehicle." You have asked, "aiming instructions notwithstanding, is this situation compliant or not, with existing NHTSA regs?"

Section S7.8.5.3(b) of Standard No. 108, applicable to VOA headlamps, prohibits horizontal adjustment of horizontal aim of the lower beam of a headlamp unless the headlamp is equipped with a horizontal VHAD. Thus a horizontal aim adjustment feature is not a requirement for VOA headlamps but an option of the headlamp manufacturer. The situation you posit is one in which a vehicle in service could have one lower beam that was horizontally adjustable and the other lower beam would not be horizontally adjustable.

This headlamp mixture would not be permissible as original equipment on new motor vehicles. Some years ago we were asked by Robert Bosch GmbH whether it would be permissible to install on one side of a vehicle a headlamp with VHAD (onboard aiming) for vertical aim and on the opposite side a VOA headlamp in the case where a vehicle manufacturer wanted to change from VHAD-headlamps to visually aimable headlamps during the production of a certain vehicle type. On March 10, 1998, we replied to Bosch (see the enclosed letter to Tilman Spingler) that "all headlamps within a headlighting system must comply with the same set of requirements, including its aiming features."

We have addressed the issue of compatibility of replacement headlamps in both the preamble to the final rule adopting VOA headlamps and in an interpretation letter to Stanley Electric Co. dated June 22, 1998 (copy enclosed). In the preamble, we observed that "any current headlamp design that is modified to include visual/optical aimability must still provide mechanical aimability if that headlamp is intended to be a replacement in vehicles in which the lamp was used before its redesign" (62 FR 10710 at 10714, March 10, 1997). Citing that language, Stanley informed us that it would modify headlamp aiming features on an existing model headlamp for a new model year headlamp but would continue producing the old design for replacement purposes. The two headlamp designs would have different parts numbers and lens identifiers. Stanley asked for confirmation that the new system need not continue to provide mechanical aimability. We replied to Tadashi Suzuki of Stanley on June 22, 1998, stating that we did not consider the new design to be a "replacement" requiring retention of the mechanically aimable feature because the two headlamps would have different part numbers and lens identifiers. We also advised that Stanley's intent would be "even clearer if the cartons in which each type of replacement headlamp is shipped are marked to identify the specific model year(s) for which replacement is intended."

In your fact situation, we assume that mechanical aimability is not an issue, and that both headlamps are VOA in type. Nevertheless, as we also advised Stanley, "[I]t is not advisable for headlamp on the same vehicle to have to be aimed by two different means." Accordingly we would encourage you to take steps to distinguish the new and old headlamp designs by the means that we suggested to Stanley (different part numbers, lens identifiers, carton marking), to minimize the possibility that a replacement headlamp might be installed that is not identical to the original headlamp, thereby creating a headlighting system that would not comply with the original equipment requirements of Standard No. 108.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.4/5/02

ID: 23918.ztv

Mr. Bing Kam
6902 Midhurst
Memphis, TN 38119





Dear Mr. Kam:

This is in reply to your letter of November 14, 2001. Because of the precautions being taken with mail addressed to Federal agencies, we did not receive it until January 16, 2002.

You have asked for an interpretation of the phrase "flashes in use" as used on the advisory sheet regarding lighting inventions which we provided you earlier. This phrase appears in the list of factors which we believe may impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 if present in supplemental lighting equipment not required by the standard. You have raised the possibility that a supplemental lamp whose cycle of flashes is more than 5 seconds might not be considered one that "flashes in use."

Standard No. 108 defines "flash" as "a cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means continuing until stopped either automatically or manually." The definition does not specify a time rate for a cycle. This means that any cycle of activation and deactivation is a flash, regardless of its duration.

Additionally, in our view, impairment may occur when any supplemental lamp gives the appearance of flashing, e.g., modulating in intensity or varying the illuminated area of the lens.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/8/02

ID: 23938.ztv

Mr. Ed Cadoff
Product Manager
Lighting & Electronic Design, Inc.,
141 Cassia Way, Units B & C
Henderson, NV 89014





Dear Mr. Cadoff:

This is in reply to your letter of October 19, 2001, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. As you know, delivery of mail to Federal offices in Washington has been delayed since October because of the need to ensure that it was free of anthrax spores, and we did not receive your letter until January 14, 2002.

Your letter concerns an electronic "wide turn" LED message sign that your company has developed, called "Right Lite," intended for the rear of large trucks. You refer to a concern with "interference lighting."

Generally, devices such as yours have been deemed permissible. We are enclosing two letters from this office which discuss this issue with reference to "wide load" LED message signs, the first addressed to Representative Charles Wilson (February 19, 1988), and the second to K. Howard Sharp (June 7, 1995).

If you have further questions about these letters or our regulations, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
NCC-20:ZTVinson:mar:1/25/02:62992:OCC 23938
cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron
Interp. 108; redbook (2)
Ztv; 23938; U:\ncc20\interp\108\23938.ztv.doc

ID: 23939.ztv

Mr. Michael Burgess
Sales Manager
Alliance Vehicle Systems
2599 N. Orange Blossom Trail
Kissimmee, FL 34744





Dear Mr. Burgess:

This is in reply to your undated letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office, which we received on January 22, 2002. As you may know, security precautions have caused a slowdown in the delivery of mail to Federal offices. If you sent your letter in the last two months of 2001, that is the reason for our delay in our responding to you.

You have enclosed literature from Vantage Vehicle Group (VVG) and ask whether the group has "met all the criteria by your Department, and has received the proper approvals." This material consists of a cover letter dated August 28, 2001, addressed to "Turf & Golf Industry Dealers" and signed by "Jim Lester," and an information sheet on the vehicles that VVG is offering for sale. The vehicles about which you ask are identified as the "TruckALL," and the "VanGO." VVG identified the vehicles as "small utility trucks and vans," and stated that they are imported directly from Kia Motors of Korea. They are described as suitable "for golf course, utility work, and multi-person transportation."

The same, or similar, Kia vehicles appear to have been the subject of our letter of May 4, 2000, to Ronald R. Shelton of Metro Motors Corporation (copy enclosed). We note, in passing, that Mr. Shelton's address is almost identical to yours (2595 vs. 2599 North Orange Blossom Trail). We sent a similar letter to Mr. Lester on June 26, 2001, a copy of which is enclosed.

We note that VVG's material contains inaccuracies. It stated that "(1) Legal [emphasis in original] importers receive letters from each government agency granting import status for its vehicles to be sold for 'off road' only. Without such approval, fines and other penalties may apply. . . . VVG has met or exceeded all U.S. government requirements for its vehicles and is approved as an importer." This is not an accurate statement. We do not grant "import status" or "approve" persons or companies as importers of off-road vehicles. We provide interpretations upon request as to whether specific vehicles are, or appear to be, manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways (e.g., whether they are motor vehicles subject to our jurisdiction). If a vehicle was not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, no Federal approval is required of the importer.

VVG also stated that "U.S. DOT . . . regulations require that importers of vehicles used 'on road' in other countries, provide evidence that its vehicles have been 'speed limited' in a manner consistent with government requirements." It also stated that "The government requires us to limit the speed on our vehicles to a maximum of 25 mph, but the type of limiter is left up to each importer. VVG only installs a U.S. built . . . electronic speed limiter." These statements are incorrect. If a vehicle is used on the public roads in its country of origin, that is a factor that we consider in providing interpretations as to whether a vehicle would be a "motor vehicle" in the United States, even if the intent of the importer is to sell or use it in off-road applications. Speed capability plays little part in these interpretations. The relevant issue is whether the vehicle will be used on the U.S. public streets, roads, and highways, in which case vehicle speed capability may be a factor in determining whether the vehicle is a "motor vehicle" and a "low-speed motor vehicle."

We are providing VVG with a copy of this letter.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
cc: Vantage Vehicle Group
ref:500
d.3/6/02

ID: 2393y

Mr. Joseph Perry
27 Shady Lane
Nashua, NH 03062

Dear Mr. Perry:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to the rules and regulations pertaining to the importation of a kit car. Your letter indicates that the vehicle will utilize both new and used components, some of them imported from England, and the remainder supplied in the United States. I regret the delay in responding.

Specifically, the components you wish to import from England are described as "the body chassis unit, possibly two boxes of used and reconditioned suspension parts and interior seats and trim in other boxes." You would like to know "if it is acceptable to have all window glass and doors fitted to the body unit before shipping to best assure its arrival in one piece; at this point "the interior, suspension, dash, wiring and steering and wheels will not be installed."

Under the fact situation you outline, it is immaterial under our regulations whether or not you install the window glass and doors before shipping, or after importation into the United States. If you prefer to install these components before shipping, that is acceptable to us. Those components, such as windshield glazing, that are covered by an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard must comply with such standard upon importation, whether or not they are attached to a larger assemblage of motor vehicle equipment. With respect to windshield glazing, the manufacturer's marking of "ASl" and "DOT" will provide the necessary assurance to a Customs inspector that the glazing conforms.

Although you mention no other covered equipment except lighting, if you are importing as part of the kit brake hoses, brake fluid, tires, seat belt assemblies, or other glazing for use in the vehicle, these must also be marked as conforming with DOT requirements.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref. Import d:4/9/90