ID: 1984-3.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Katten, Muchin, Zavis, Pearl & Galler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation Mr. Stephen M. Neumer Katten, Muchin, Zavis, Pearl & Galler 4100 Mid-Continental Plaza 55 East Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60603

Dear Mr. Neumer:

This responds to Your August 28, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the labeling requirements specified in paragraph 5.2.2.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, for containers of brake fluid. You asked whether a label that is "permanently glued" to the container conforms to Standard No. 116. The answer to your question is no.

As you are aware, NHTSA does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is required to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

In your letter you referred to the interpretation that we issued on April 3, 1984, to the Wagner Division of the McGraw-Edison Company. In that interpretation we stated that paper labels on brake fluid containers are not sufficient to comply with the "indelibly marked" requirements of the standard. We interpreted S5.2.2.2 to require the relevant information to be marked directly on the brake fluid container and not merely on a label that is affixed to the container. The agency based this interpretation on the language contained in a notice of proposed rulemaking (35 FR 15229) which proposed to allow labeling on either the brake fluid container or a label or tag attached to the container and the subsequent language in the final rule (36 FR 11987) which did not adopt the proposed alternative permitting markings on labels or tags.

Based on the clear language in Standard No. 116 and our past interpretations on labeling requirements, we are unable to concur with your interpretation that the information required on containers of brake fluids may be marked on labels "permanently glued" to the container.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 28, 1984

Via Air Courier Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are aware of the inquiry of the Wagner Division of McGraw-Edison Company respecting the use of the loose-fitted paper sleeve label on poly-bottles containing brake fluid and your opinion regarding that labeling process. Our client is a packager of brake fluid which, like many of the major marketers of this product, packages brake fluid in poly-bottles but with wrap-around labels permanently glued to the container. By way of background, our client has been packaging brake fluid in this manner for over six years, with millions of bottles having been sold, without one complaint of a label coming unaffixed from a poly-bottle. The labeling is accomplished by sophisticated equipment, acquired at significant cost, and, in addition, there is a quality control department, to assure the permanence of the labels.

Please note that our client does not use a loose-fitting paper sleeve, but its label is permanently glued to the poly-bottle. I have enclosed an example of this kind of container, which is widely used throughout the industry (by way of information, this is not our client's bottle).

It is our opinion that, since the ink on the label is indelibly marked on each label and each label is thereafter permanently glued to the container (not just loosely fitted to the container by sliding it on), there is compliance with Paragraph S5.2.2.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116. Please confirm our opinion as soon as possible.

In advance, thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very truly yours, Stephen M. Neumer

ID: 1931y

Don A. Norton, Esq.
Levinson, Murray & Jensen, P.C.
Suite 400
312 West Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60606

Dear Mr. Norton:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to compliance of imported motor vehicles with the Federal standard relating to vehicle identification numbers (VIN). I regret the delay in responding.

You have asked "in what manner does the importer affix the vehicle identification number to the tag that is to be located so as to be visible from the outside of the vehicle through the left portion of the windshield? Is the proper procedure to acertain the proper chassis number of the vehicle, and then to fashion, emboss, and affix a plate of any design that would comport with the visibility regulations," or is it affixed by the State authority that licenses the vehicle.

Compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard is the responsibility of the importer of any vehicle not originally manufactured to comply with the standards. Compliance with Standard No. ll5 requires affixation of the VIN in the location you described (paragraph S4.6). The VIN label should be affixed by the person conforming the vehicle, as compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. ll5, must be demonstrated simultaneously in order to satisfy Federal requirements. A State does not affix VINs.

In response to a request you made for information, please note that we have searched our records and find no l98l or other model Mercedes-Benz with the serial number WDB10704612000486.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /ref:115 d:8/7/89

ID: nht73-1.4

DATE: 08/10/73

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

TO: Dow Corning Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 27, 1973, asking if there is a conflict between S5.4.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105a and S5.2.1 of Standard No. 116.

There is no conflict. S5.4.3 of Standard No. 105a requires a label to be affixed to a new motor vehicle with the warning to use brake fluid from a sealed container. S5.2.1 of Standard No. 116 requires containers to be provided with resealable closures. A container with a resealable closure is "sealed" within the meaning of S5.4.3 if it is resealed after initial opening.

I enclose copies of both notices as they appeared in the Federal Register.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

July 27, 1973

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- Office of Chief Council,

Attention: Larry Schneider

Dear Mr. Schneider:

I am a member of the Transportation Products Division Executive Board of the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association. As a member also of the Brake Fluid Committee, I have been asked to determine the following information from your office. We need an interpretation of the specific meaning of the wording of the Federal Register, Volume 38, Friday, May 18, 1973, page 13017, paragraph S 5.4 regarding master cylinder reservoirs specifically where the reservoir "must be filled from sealed containers."

There is an apparant conflict with Federal Register Volume 36, June 24, 1971, paragraph S 5.2.1 in the 116 motor vehicle brake fluid standards in brake fluids. This states. "contents of six ounces or more must be in containers with resealable closures."

The conflict with many of our members is if the 116 motor vehicle brake fluids standards requires that the material be packaged in a container with a resealable closure, how does this then fit the wording of the previous Register, Volume 38, that it must be filled from sealed containers?

Is it possible that the Federal Register, Volume 38, is referring to fill from original containers or containers that have been immediately resealed after they are opened and when reused are the same condition as a sealed container?

It is very necessary that our CSMA group have an interpretation from you as to the seeming conflict. Our members need to know exactly how we can comply properly with both of these Federal Register issues.

For my own records, may I please have a copy or a xerox copy of the total wording of each of these Federal Register numbers for presentation to the CSMA Brake Fluid Committee. I would appreciate an early response to this request.

Very truly yours,

C. W. Todd -- Market Supervisor, Fluids, Emulsions and Compounds, Dow Corning

cc: Grace Fay -- National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Motor Vehicles Program;

Mike Baldwin -- Dow Chemical Company

ID: nht75-3.33

DATE: 12/15/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Volvo of America's October 9, 1975, question whether a truck equipped with an air-assisted hydraulic brake system with hydraulic push through capability and, in the towing vehicle configuration, a source of compressed air for air braked trailer operation, is subject to Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

From your description of the system and the materials that accompanied your letter, the truck does not qualify as an air-braked vehicle to which the standard applies. The fact that it is capable of operation in combination with an air-braked vehicle and supplies the compressed air for braking that vehicle does not affect the truck's classification as an hydraulic-braked vehicle.

At the time Standard No. 121 was developed, it covered virtually all of the trucks and truck-tractors in the heaviest categories. In planning and making your decisions to introduce hydraulic-braked vehicles in these weight categories, you should be aware that this agency is planning to cover all such vehicles with the basic performance requirements presently contained in Standard No. 121.

SINCERELY,

October 9, 1975

Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Applicability of Brake Regulations to Vehicle Combinations Consisting of a Hydraulic Brake Equipped Tractor and an Air Brake Equipped Trailer.

Volvo of America Corporation is currently considering the importation of a hydraulic brake equipped truck with a GVWR of 29,000 pounds. The basic vehicle can be outfitted as either a straight truck or a truck tractor. Both versions employ the same brake system. Our question concerns the applicability of the requirements of FMVSS No. 121 to this truck tractor when coupled to an air brake equipped trailer.

The operating principles of the brake system employed on both versions of the truck are described in the attachments to this letter. Basically it is an air assisted hydraulic brake system with a hydraulic push through capability. In the tractor version of this truck provisions are made in the brake system for the supply of compressed air to the brake system of the attached trailer. This is accomplished in a manner which enables the truck to operate in combination with conventional air brake equipped trailers.

Our understanding of the pertinent regulations indicates that since the truck tractor is not subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 121, being fitted with hydraulic brakes, the combination of this tractor and an air brake equipped trailer also is not subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 121, regardless of what requirements are applicable to the trailer by itself. Your verification of this understanding is requested.

Your prompt consideration of this matter would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning the technical details of the brake system, please direct them to Mr. Bjorn Klingenberg at the address indicated below:

Volvo of America Corporation Truck Division 266 UNION STREET NORTHVALE, N.J. 07647

All other communications concerning this matter should be directed to the undersigned.

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Engineering and Development

Donald W. Taylor Manager, Product Safety & Quality

CC: B. KLINGENBERG

ID: 9590

Mr. Donald F. Lett
Lett Electronics Company
410 North Plum
Hutchinson, KS 67501

Dear Mr. Lett:

This responds to your letter to me in which you asked whether any "pre-necessary authorization" is needed for molding white sidewalls onto existing passenger car tires. We assume "pre- necessary authorization" means this agency's prior approval or permission to modify the tires in the manner you propose.

You explained in your letter that you intend to modify existing radial passenger car blackwall tires by grinding a recess into one sidewall between 1/8 and 3/16 inches deep by 2 inches wide, then vulcanizing white rubber into that recess to transform a "D.O.T. approved radial blackwall tire" into a white sidewall tire. You would then market those tires, as modified, for classic cars of the 1955-1960 era.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment.

The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which vehicle and equipment manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this self-certification system, neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation (DOT) approves, endorses, certifies, or gives assurances of compliance of any product. Rather, NHTSA enforces its standards by testing products in accordance with the test procedures set forth in applicable FMVSSs. If the product meets the requirements of the standard, no further action is taken. If the product fails to comply, the manufacturer must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchaser(s). Failure to comply with any FMVSS can also result in civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $800,000 for a series of related violations.

We assume from your letter that you propose to modify new radial passenger car tires. Whether the process you described is permissible depends on whether it adversely affects the tire's compliance with FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires (copy enclosed). This standard specifies the performance requirements applicable to passenger car tires, which include tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance, and high speed performance.

It does not appear that radial tires can be modified as you propose and still meet the requirements of Standard 109. The average radial tire sidewall is approximately 3/16 inch thick at the shoulder, gradually increasing to approximately 1/2 inch where the sidewall meets the bead. The radial sidewall is unsupported by cords, belts, or other material contributing to the strength of that sidewall. To achieve a 2 inch whitewall, at least some of the whitewall would extend into the tire shoulder. Therefore, cutting into a radial tire sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 3/16 inch would cut through the sidewall. Cutting into the sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 1/8 inch would leave approximately 1/16 inch of rubber on the shoulder of the tire. That would, obviously, have the effect of destroying the tire.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(1)(A), prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling any new item of equipment that does not conform to all applicable FMVSSs. A new noncomplying tire that is sold to a retail customer would constitute a violation of 108(a)(1)(A), and is subject to the recall and civil penalties described above. In addition, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Accordingly, modifying previously-complying tires by removing them from compliance with the strength requirements of FMVSS 109 could violate 108(a)(2)(A), again subjecting the violator to the civil penalties described above.

Standard No. 109 also requires that certain information be molded into or onto the sidewalls of tires in certain specified locations and that the letters "DOT" appear on each tire sidewall to indicate the manufacturer's certification that the tire complies with all applicable FMVSSs. In addition, the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR Part 575.104, provides that the ratings required by that section will be molded onto or into the sidewalls of tires. Therefore, if the modification you propose obliterates or removes any of the required labeling, that could violate FMVSS 109 and the UTQGS, again subjecting the violator to penalties.

In addition to the safety implications of grinding and filling recesses in tires, we also note that the suspension systems of older motor vehicles may not be compatible with radial tires. The handling and stability of those vehicles could be adversely affected by mounting radial tires on them, or by the mixing radial and bias ply tires, without appropriate modifications to their suspension systems.

Finally, I note that you used the term "previously D.O.T. approved" tire in your letter. As explained above, NHTSA does not use that term because neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation "approves" tires or any other motor vehicle product. We assume that by using that expression you mean that the tires you select for modification contain the "DOT" code that signify the manufacturer's, not NHTSA's, certification. Nevertheless, since the meaning of the term is unclear and might be misleading to consumers, we ask that you not use that term in any of your promotional materials.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:109#110#575 d:5/18/94

ID: 08-003275 Well convertible top

ID: nht75-3.44

DATE: 09/11/75

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

TO: Lear Siegler, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I appreciate your letter of August 13, 1975, forwarding a copy of Neway's publication on Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. The efforts of companies like Neway to assist final-stage manufacturers in their certification responsibility has been an important part of the implementation of the air brake systems standard.

You asked for review of the booklet, which consists mainly of instructions to manufacturers concerning systems that must be tested and how to establish a basis for certification. This is an area which our statutory scheme leaves to the manufacturer, and in which, aside from discussions of general principles, this agency declined to issue statements of approval. While we appreciate the usefulness of the advice contained in your booklet, we regret that we can not judge the adequacy of a certification program in the abstract.

YOURS TRULY,

LEAR SIEGLER, INC.

NEWAY DIVISION

August 13, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

I thought you would be interested in reviewing the enclosed copy of our FMVSS-121 booklet. If you wish additional copies, they are available.

This represents our interpretation of the Safety Standard and our recommendations to the industry in order to guide them in compliance with FMVSS-121.

We would appreciate your critical review of this booklet and any comments that you may have.

Ed Young

LEAR SIEGLER, INC.

NEWAY DIVISION

July 21, 1975

GENTLEMEN: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 (FMVSS-121) is a Department of Transportation Safety Standard defining brake system equipment and braking performance to be met by nearly all vehicles with air brake systems. Its purpose is to insure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions and is applicable to trucks, tractors, trailers and buses equiped with air brakes. Most trailers manufactured after December 31, 1974, and most trucks, tractors and buses manufactured after March 1, 1975, must meet the requirements of FMVSS-121. FMVSS-121 is in fact a law within which we must abide and conduct our business. Confusing? - complicated? - cumbersome? - Costly? YES! Impossible to deal with and comply? No! Difficult? Maybe at first but it too will come to pass and fall within our experteise and we shall take it in our stride.

FMVSS-121 is to be reckoned with so let us jointly accept it as reality and do everything in our power to comply with the law. Our heavy duty trucking customers are still going to rely on us to supply them with completed, road-ready vehicles, properly certified and meeting all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations and standards. And it can be done. It is in this spirit that we offer this manual to be used as a guide in installing add-on, non-powered axles to new truck and tractors.

Edward L. J. Young

Director of Engineering

ID: nht89-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: LES SCHREINER -- FRESIA ENGINEERING INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/01/89 FROM LES SCHREINER TO NHTSA, OCC 3193

TEXT: Dear Mr. Schreiner:

This responds to your letter asking whether some vehicles you plan to import into the United States are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. These vehicles consist of snow removal vehicles and aircraft towi ng vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." Accordingly, Fresia's vehicles are subject to the safety standards only if those vehicles are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of 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 vehicles operated exclusively on the rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Tractors and other agricultural equipment are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles design ed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are 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, NHTSA has treated it as a motor vehicle. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public

2

roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has treated the vehicle as a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statement that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public road s.

NHTSA has also stated that in many prior interpretation that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public road will not be considered "motor vehicles" for the purpose of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 mil es per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

Applying these principles to the vehicles shown in the brochures enclosed with our letter yields the following tentative conclusions.

1. The vehicles identified as "aircraft towing tractors" would not appear to be motor vehicles, assuming that these vehicles are designed and sold solely for use off the public roads.

2. The vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment" appear to fall into two categories.

a. One of the categories consists of the models identified as the "F10 NF" and the "Vomero TO-TB-TA-TR," "Fresa Laterale," and "Fresa Integrale HP 200-170" models. These vehicles would not appear to be motor vehicles, because their maximum speed app ears to be 20 mph or less and they have a configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

b. The second category consists of all the other vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment." All the vehicles in this category look like conventional trucks with either snowplow blades or snowblowers attached to the front of the truck and appear capable of speeds greater than 20 mph. We have consistently stated that trucks with snow blowers or snowplow blades on the front end are motor vehicles, and are subject to all of our safety standards applicable to trucks. For your information, I have enclosed an April 7, 1983 letter to Mr. Takeo Shimizu on this subject.

I have identified our conclusions as tentative for several reasons. The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying any particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle manufacturer. Accordingly, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any ve hicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified the vehicle. HNTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classifications in the course of any enforcement actions. The agency does, however, tentatively state how it believes vehicles shoul d be classified for the purpose of the safety standards.

Additionally, the tentative opinions expressed in this letter are based on the literature enclosed with your letter. We may change the tentative opinions expressed in this letter if we have occasion to examine the vehicles themselves or otherwise acquir e additional information about the vehicles.

Since you are considering importing some vehicles that would appear to be "motor vehicles" into the United States, I have enclosed some additional

3

materials for your information. One is an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles, which highlights the relevant statutes and regulations that apply to such manufacturers and explains how the manufacturer can get copies of the relevant statues and regulations. The other item is a booklet entitled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures." This booklet summarizes the basic requirements of our safety standards and shows which standards apply to trucks.

Your letter also indicated that your company would be interested in any "approval procedure or testing process NHTSA would administer" to get your company's vehicles on a qualified products list. NHTSA has no authority to approve or endorse any motor ve hicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is itself responsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA peri odically tests vehicles and items of equipment to ensure their compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: 1766y

Mr. Les Schreiner
Fresia Engineering Inc.
700 E. Main Street
Suite 1618
Richmond, VA 23219

Dear Mr. Schreiner:

This responds to your letter asking whether some vehicles you plan to import into the United States are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. These vehicles consist of snow removal vehicles and aircraft towing vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." Accordingly, Fresia's vehicles are subject to the safety standards only if those vehicles are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of 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.

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

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are 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, NHTSA has treated it as a motor vehicle. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has treated the vehicle as 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 interpretation that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" for the purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

Applying these principles to the vehicles shown in the brochures enclosed with your letter yields the following tentative conclusions.

1. The vehicles identified as "aircraft towing tractors" would not appear to be motor vehicles, assuming that these vehicles are designed and sold solely for use off the public roads.

2. The vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment" appear to fall into two categories. a. One of the categories consists of the models identified as the "F10 NF" and the "Vomero TO-TB-TA-TR," "Fresa Laterale," and "Fresa Integrale HP 200-170" models. These vehicles would not appear to be motor vehicles, because their maximum speed appears to be 20 mph or less and they have a configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road. b. The second category consists of all the other vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment." All the vehicles in this category look like conventional trucks with either snowplow blades or snowblowers attached to the front of the truck and appear capable of speeds greater than 20 mph. We have consistently stated that trucks with snow blowers or snowplow blades on the front end are motor vehicles, and are subject to all of our safety standards applicable to trucks. For your information, I have enclosed an April 7, 1983 letter to Mr. Takeo Shimizu on this subject.

I have identified our conclusions as tentative for several reasons. The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying any particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle manufacturer. Accordingly, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified the vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classifications in the course of any enforcement actions. The agency does, however, tentatively state how it believes vehicles should be classified for the purposes of the safety standards.

Additionally, the tentative opinions expressed in this letter are based on the literature enclosed with your letter. We may change the tentative opinions expressed in this letter if we have occasion to examine the vehicles themselves or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicles.

Since you are considering importing some vehicles that would appear to be "motor vehicles" into the United States, I have enclosed some additional materials for your information. One is an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles, which highlights the relevant statutes and regulations that apply to such manufacturers and explains how the manufacturer can get copies of the relevant statutes and regulations. The other item is a booklet entitled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures." This booklet summarizes the basic requirements of our safety standards and shows which standards apply to trucks.

Your letter also indicated that your company would be interested in any "approval procedure or testing process NHTSA would administer" to get your company's vehicles on a qualified products list. NHTSA has no authority to approve or endorse any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is itself responsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment to ensure their compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ ref:VSA d:4/3/89

ID: 17435.wkm

Mr. Marlin Harbour
Heartland Rig International, Inc.
Post Office Box 1429
Brady, TX 76825

Dear Mr. Harbour:

This responds to your inquiry faxed to Walter Myers of this office on March 4, 1998 and your telephone conversations with Mr. Myers on April 14 and May 1, 1998. You sent a drawing of a trailer that you manufacture for the purpose of hauling oil drilling equipment and asked whether it is excluded from the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.121). The answer is yes, as discussed below.

Standard No. 121 applies to trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. However, subparagraphs S3(a) through (g) of Standard 121 lists seven types of vehicles to which the standard does not apply. Applicable to your trailer, paragraph S3(e) excludes:

Any trailer that has a GVWR of more than 120,000 pounds and whose body conforms to that described in the definition of heavy hauler trailer set forth in S4 (emphasis added).

Heavy hauler trailer is defined in S4 as:

[A] trailer which has one or more of the following characteristics, but which is not a container chassis trailer:

(1) Its brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame; or

(2) Its body consists only of a platform whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition, except that it may include sides that are designed to be easily removable and a permanent "front end structure" as that term is used in 393.106 of [Title 49, CFR]. (NOTE: A copy of 49 CFR 393.106 is enclosed)

The drawing indicates that the GVWR of the trailer exceeds 120,000 pounds. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Myers on April 14, you stated that the cargo-carrying surface of the trailer bed is forty-four inches (44 inches) above the ground, loaded. It would likely be higher than that, unloaded. Accordingly, your trailer does not meet criteria (2). You indicated in a telephone conversation with Mr. Myers on May 1, 1998, however, that your trailer's brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame. If so, that meets criteria number (1) above and, when combined with the trailer's GVWR of 121,500 pounds, excludes your trailer from the ABS requirements in accordance with S3(e) of Standard No. 121.

In summary, your trailer would meet criteria (1) of the definition of "heavy hauler trailer" and, combined with the trailer's GVWR, would be excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 121 in accordance with paragraph S3(e) of the standard.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have additional questions or need further information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:#121
d.6/1/98