ID: nht81-1.5

DATE: 01/22/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hendrickson Mfg. Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 25, 1980, letter asking whether any safety standards have been violated by a truck modification that you perform. In your modification, you alter a chassis to provide right-hand controls. The vehicle is then sent to a final-stage manufacturer for completion.

As an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, you are required to attach the appropriate label to the vehicle in accordance with Part 567, Certification. That label makes certain statements about the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards as a result of your modifications.

You ask whether any safety standards have been violated by your modifications. It is impossible for the agency to determine compliance without testing one of your vehicles. You list several changes that you make to the vehicle, including the addition of: a foot throttle, foot service brake, hand spring brake, turn signal, transmission selector, and steering wheel. The agency has safety standards that govern many of these devices. These standards are found in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, in Part 571. It is a manufacturer's responsibility to ensure that its vehicles comply with these standards. The only advice that we can offer is that nothing precludes the type of modifications that you propose. The installation of right-hand controls is permissible as long as the compliance with all safety standards is maintained.

ID: 8998

`

Mr. Joe de Sousa President Safety Pro's International, Inc. 34126 State Road 54 West Zephyrhills, FL 33543

Dear Mr. de Sousa:

We have received your letter of August 12, 1993, as well as your letter to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency and its enclosures.

You are interested in marketing an accessory daytime running lamp (DRL) system, and have asked for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to this product. There appear to be two versions of this system. In both systems, the DRLs are the lower beam headlamps, automatically activated at 77% intensity when the ignition is turned on. The taillamps and side marker lamps are not activated. The systems are deactivated when the ignition is turned off. The systems differ in that one automatically activates the headlamps to full intensity (while activating the taillamps and side marker lamps as well) at a pre- determined lower ambient light level.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, aftermarket lighting equipment may be installed provided that it does not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The system you describe is congruent with the DRL systems permitted by Standard No. 108, which allows DRLs to be lower beam headlamps operated at less than full intensity, without activation of the taillamps and side marker lamps. Therefore, the installation of either of your DRL systems would not affect a vehicle's pre-existing compliance with Standard No. 108 or any other standard, and is permissible under our regulations.

We note that the reduced intensity is achieved by a "pulse with modulation" which cycle the headlamps "on and off faster than the eye can detect." S5.5.10(d) of Standard No. 108 requires headlamps to be steady-burning for uses other than flashing. While a modulating headlamp technically is not a steady-burning one, for purposes of this requirement we have concluded that there is no failure to conform if the modulating light from the lamp is perceived to be a steady beam, as appears to be the case here.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:3/10/94

ID: 22526.ztv

Mr. Benjamin J. Freeman
1715 Aberdeen Avenue
Aberdeen, WA 98520





Dear Mr. Freeman:

This is in reply to your email of December 26, 2000, asking about the status of military vehicles for spare parts. You have been offered 30 trucks of model years 1990-96.

You state that "as long as I have all engines and transmissions removed and have the remaining vehicles meet all standards for that year the vehicle was manufactured, FMVSS. Or as I thought of mainly offering the spare parts as upgradeable (newer) replacement core components to others like myself with older Land Rovers."

We are not quite clear as to whether the military trucks are Land Rovers or other types of vehicles. We are also unsure whether you would be importing these parts. Nevertheless, we can offer some guidance.

Vehicles manufactured pursuant to U.S. military contracts are exempt from the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Military vehicles that are not manufactured pursuant to U.S. military contracts are not exempt from the FMVSS and, if they are imported, they are subject to the same requirements as apply to the importation of non-military motor vehicles. Motor vehicles that are imported for resale and that were not originally manufactured to comply with the FMVSS (such as a Land Rover manufactured for the British armed forces) can only be imported through an entity that our agency has recognized as a Registered Importer. Items of motor vehicle equipment may be imported provided that those items that are subject to one of the FMVSS comply with the applicable standard and are so certified (e.g., brake hoses must be stamped DOT as certification of compliance with FMVSS No. 106, but brake discs or drums do not have to be certified or to comply with any standard, since no FMVSS applies to them).

Used components of military vehicles may be imported and sold as replacement parts for non-military vehicles, subject to the compliance/certification restriction mentioned in the previous paragraph. However, if a vehicle is disassembled, its component parts sent to the United States, and reassembled after importation, or if a vehicle is assembled from imported parts, we consider that the FMVSS that apply to it are those in effect as of the date of its latest assembly regardless of the age of the parts.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:571#591
d.2/26/01

ID: 09-002149as df Maxon

ID: nht93-2.19

DATE: March 18, 1993

FROM: Philip Trupiano -- Auto Enterprises, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-31-93 from John Womack to Philip Trupiano (A41; Part 592)

TEXT: Pursuant to our phone conversation of this date, I now write to you seeking a interpretation of Sec S92.6 and 7 and the application of those sections to a proposed vehicle entry under the Registered Importer (RI) program. The facts for the proposed importation are as follows:

1. The vehicle is a 1984 Ford 9000 heavy duty truck. A current Canadian safety certification obtained from the required annual safety inspection exists. Ford Motor Company has already supplied verbal notice and a written letter stating the compliance of this truck with the U.S. FMVSS. Because this is obviously a commercial vehicle, NHTSA's policy does not allow entry under the personal use program; an RI is necessary.

2. The owner of the vehicle, a farming and trucking operation, is in North Dakota. The vehicle is currently in Manitoba, just above the North Dakota border. The proposed port of entry would be on the North Dakota/Canadian border, at least 2000 (driving) miles away from Detroit, Michigan where we are located.

3. Because of the distance involved, we propose to facilitate the entry my mailing the previously prepared (by Auto Enterprises) RI Certification Label to our customs broker (and authorized agent who already has our Power of Attorney) at the port of entry so that he can affix the label and take the appropriate photographs. The same customs broker is also acting on our behalf in filing the necessary Customs documents. The photographs would then be returned to us for subsequent inclusion with our Statement of Conformity and request for bond release which will be sent to NHTSA. We now ask your interpretation of the regulations to determine whether we, as the RI, using this arrangement, satisfy the requirement of 692.6(d).

4. The language in our present contract with the Importer (owner) states that the Importer "agrees not to sell, lease, title or register the vehicle or operate the vehicle on public roads prior to the issuance of DOT bond release".

Due to the logistics of the distances involved, the holding area and available inspection site for this proposed entry would be the Importer's company lot. The Importer would physically be unable to license or title the truck (due to lack of the necessary Customs Form 7501 or DOT release which must be supplied to the State licensing bureau) prior to actual DOT release or the expiration of the proscribed 30 day period. Since only Auto Enterprises has access to the Customs Form 7501 (Commercial Entry), our ability to withhold this important document would preclude licensing or titling (and, thus the ability to operate the truck) in any State. In view of these facts, we now ask your interpretation of the regulations to determine whether we, as the RI, using this proposed entry arrangement, satisfy the requirement of 591.8(d)(3) and

592.8(a).

To this date, Auto Enterprises has not made any entries with circumstances similar to those above. However, the party described above is waiting on a determination of these issues so that we may enter his truck as immediately as circumstances permit. We believe that a determination which is unfavorable would create an unnecessary economic hardship on the Importer as he would have to drive or transport the truck an additional 4000 miles for entry and storage in Detroit. Further, as the original manufacturer, Ford Motor Company, has already issued a letter stating compliance, this vehicle would otherwise be eligible for importation without an RI if this were a personal use basis. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (313) 589-3600. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. We await your reply.

Attached to letter dated 9-17-92 from Holt M. Johnston, Ford Motor Company, to Peter Fehr, Flexi-Coil Limited, re: FMVSS 108 and FMVSS 121. Also attached to Louisville Truck Centre Work Order re: FMVSS 121.

(Text omitted.)

ID: 15085.mls

Mr. Randall Carroll
ASTEC Industries
4101 Jerome Avenue
Chattanooga, TN 37407

Dear Mr. Carroll:

This responds to your inquiry to Mr. David Coleman of this agency's Safety Assurance Office asking whether construction equipment you manufacture, asphalt plants and soil incineration systems, are motor vehicles that would have to comply with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.

Before addressing your question, I would like to note that our answer is limited to the "asphalt plants" and "soil incineration systems" whose attributes you describe in your letter, and to other of your vehicles with similar attributes. We cannot ascertain whether our answer applies to all of your "other miscellaneous construction equipment" without knowing more about the equipment, such as their intended use of the highways. The 10 sketches you provided of several types of your equipment are incomplete in this respect. If you are interested in an opinion on a product other than asphalt plants or soil incineration systems, please provide a full description of the equipment.

You state that the equipment is intended for off road use and has axles and king pins attached to enable the equipment to be transported between job sites. You further state that the equipment stays at one job site from a few months to several years and is thus infrequently transported over public roads. As explained below, we believe that the types of equipment you describe would not be "motor vehicles" under Federal law.

As way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets and enforces the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are promulgated. NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"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."

In the past, we have concluded that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. Other construction vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the available information, it appears that the two types of construction equipment you describe are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the statutory definition. This conclusion is based on statements in your letter that the equipment typically spends extended periods of time at a single site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of the construction equipment on the public roads to be merely incidental. Since these types of construction equipment are not motor vehicles, they would not be subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If NHTSA were to receive additional information indicating that your construction equipment used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. If your equipment were found to be a motor vehicle, you would be a motor vehicle manufacturer, and would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each vehicle complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. This certification procedure is set out in 49 CFR Part 567.

Please note that since a State may require an off-road vehicle to be registered, you may wish to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which your products will be sold or used about requirements for the use of the vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.7/8/97

ID: nht76-5.17

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: E. D. Etnyre & Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in belated response to your letters of June 22, 1976, concerning the availability of NHTSA interpretation letters and the assignment by vehicle manufacturers of Gross Axle Weight Ratings.

Letters written by this agency that interpret the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or accompanying regulations are regularly compiled by standard or regulation number and placed in a public file (the "redbooks") in the Docket Section at Room 5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. Copies of these letters are distributed informally by various trade associations, as you have noted. However, there is currently no subscription service available directly from the NHTSA. I recommend that you periodically (bimonthly, perhaps) telephone the Docket Section (202 426-2768) to find out whether entries have recently been made in the Redbooks under the standards and regulations that are of particular concern to you.

You have also asked several questions concerning the relationship between an axle's Gross Axle Weight Pating (GAWR) and the overloading of that axle when the vehicle is in use. GAWR is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as

the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.

It is thus a rating assigned by the manufacturer at the time of manufacture. A vehicle whose axle weight ratings are likely to be exceeded under the manufacturer's intended or reasonably forseeable conditions of usage would probably be considered to contain a safety-related defect. Such a vehicle would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1392 et seq.).

We cannot prescribe specific steps that a vehicle manufacturer must take to ensure that a GAWR would not be found so low that it would be a safety-related defect. For example, if a warning in the owner's manual against loading in a certain manner is likely to be ignored, then such a warning would not, by itself, be sufficient. The NHTSA expects the vehicle manufacturer to take reasonable steps, short of retraining from production, to minimize the likelihood of vehicle misuse through overloading.

SINCERELY,

E.D. ETNYRE & CO.

June 22, 1976

U.S. Department of Transportation Legal Counsel - NHTSA This matter refers to Part 567 "Certification" and Part 568 "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or more Stages" of 49CFR.

Many of the interpretations and comments dealing with "rated loads" refer to the circumstance of exceeding the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). However, the certification label also requires that the Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) also be noted. We have not as yet seen any question or interpretation dealing with the matter of overload on an axle. Our questions then are as follows.

1. Assume a tank type motor vehicle; which when loaded full to its rated cargo load; expressed as a volume of a specific commodity. (i.e., water); does not exceed the GVWR rating but the load is distributed such that a GAWR is exceeded. Is this a violation of the regulations?

2. Assume the same type vehicle loaded with a material whose specific weight varies over a limited range but does have an average acceptable value for general use (i.e. asphalt). If a GAWR is exceeded is this a violation of the regulations?

3. Assume a vehicle as in paragraph 2, constructed of compartments for variable commodities and designed for a specific loading arrangement. If the loading arrangement is not followed by the user and the GAWR is exceeded but not the GVWR, is the manufacturer liable?

4. Assume a vehicle as in paragraph 1, which is loaded full by the user with a material heavier than specified and designed for by the manufacturer and both the GVWR and GAWR are exceeded, is the manufacturer liable?

5. If a volumetric load of specific weight is considered by the manufacturer in rating the vehicle, what steps are necessary to protect the manufacturer from alleged violations of rating if other commodities are carried?

Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer

E.D. ETNYRE & CO.

June 22, 1976

U.S. Department of Transportation Legal Counsel - NHTSA

We have become aware of the process whereby interpretation to paragraphs of Parts of 49CFR (particularly Parts 567, 568 and 571) are distributed on an informal basis through various trade associations. We further note that they apparently are carried in your files under the designation of "N40-30".

Since our activities are not completely served by any one particular association and we are not prepared to join a multitude of associations, is there a compilation of interpretations which are available from NHTSA on a regular or subscription basis? If there is such a service we would appreciate hearing about it. If not, how do we assure ourselves that interpretations which are being made on matters of common concern are made available to us so that we can comply with these interpretations?

Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer

ID: nht94-3.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 11, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carmen Colet -- Vice President, John Russo Industrial, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/24/94 from Carmen Colet to Dorothy Nakama (OCC-10060)

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements or any other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applies to your "aircraft rescue and fire-fighting vehicle." As ex plained below, the answer is no.

Your letter states that your company is constructing the vehicle "to satisfy proposed U.S.A.F. and D.O.D." specifications. The vehicle is made to operate on airfields. You described the unusual configuration of the vehicle as having a "cockpit" that is "similar to 117A Stealth Fighter," having bumpers that are 5 feet high, and having a "power water turret on top." You further stated that vehicle uses tires 54 inches high and over two feet wide, that are made to be run on only for 20 minutes, at a spee d of up to 65 miles per hour.

Enclosed with your letter is a picture of the vehicle, which you asked be kept confidential. Although your request for confidentiality does not comply with NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR part 512 Confidential Business Information, in order to save time, I will not publicly disclose the picture.

The FMVSSs apply only to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. @ 30102 (a)(6). "Motor vehicle" is defined at section 30102(a)(6) as:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

We have interpreted this language to mean that vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. In an interpretation letter of

2

December 28, 1979, to Walter Motor Truck Company, NHTSA determined that the Walter airport crash-fire-rescue vehicle does not qualify as a motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS. Your description of your aircraft rescue vehicle indicates that the vehicle is to be used only within an airfield. In particular, the size and 20 minute running time of the tires, appears to make the vehicle impracticable for highway use.

Based on the information you have provided, and our understanding that your vehicles are neither used on public roads nor suitable for such use, we conclude that the "aircraft rescue and fire-fighting vehicle" is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, your vehicle is not subject to Standard No. 115. Since you are not a manufacturer of a "motor vehicle," you do not have to furnish NHTSA with information pursuant to 49 CFR part 566 Manufactur er Identification.

Enclosed with this letter is your picture of the aircraft rescue and fire-fighting vehicle. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

ID: 10060

Mrs. Carmen Colet
Vice President
John Russo Industrial, Inc.
575 West San Carlos Street
San Jose, CA 95126

Dear Mrs. Colet:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements or any other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applies to your "aircraft rescue and fire-fighting vehicle." As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter states that your company is constructing the vehicle "to satisfy proposed U.S.A.F. and D.O.D." specifications. The vehicle is made to operate on airfields. You described the unusual configuration of the vehicle as having a "cockpit" that is "similar to 117A Stealth Fighter," having bumpers that are 5 feet high, and having a "power water turret on top." You further stated that vehicle uses tires 54 inches high and over two feet wide, that are made to be run on only for 20 minutes, at a speed of up to 65 miles per hour.

Enclosed with your letter is a picture of the vehicle, which you asked be kept confidential. Although your request for confidentiality does not comply with NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR part 512 Confidential Business Information, in order to save time, I will not publicly disclose the picture.

The FMVSSs apply only to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. '30102(a)(6). "Motor vehicle" is defined at section 30102(a)(6) as:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

We have interpreted this language to mean that vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. In an interpretation letter of

December 28, 1979, to Walter Motor Truck Company, NHTSA determined that the Walter airport crash-fire-rescue vehicle does not qualify as a motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS. Your description of your aircraft rescue vehicle indicates that the vehicle is to be used only within an airfield. In particular, the size and 20 minute running time of the tires, appears to make the vehicle impracticable for highway use.

Based on the information you have provided, and our understanding that your vehicles are neither used on public roads nor suitable for such use, we conclude that the "aircraft rescue and fire-fighting vehicle" is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, your vehicle is not subject to Standard No. 115. Since you are not a manufacturer of a "motor vehicle," you do not have to furnish NHTSA with information pursuant to 49 CFR part 566 Manufacturer Identification. Enclosed with this letter is your picture of the aircraft rescue and fire-fighting vehicle. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA d:7/11/94

ID: nht89-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DAVID S. HUGHES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/24/89 FROM DAVID S. HUGHES TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 3354

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hughes:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to a lighting fixture you wish to install on your trailer. Your diagram shows it to be a rectangular unit that displays "Thanks Driver" or "Thank You" as a courtesy message. The unit may be mounted on the re ar of the trailer, "between the safety bar under the floor of the trailer", or "directly behind the mud flaps." In either location, you state that it "would be out of the way of any regulated light." You are also interested in the possibility of selling the lamp. I regret the delay in responding.

This agency has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" individual items of lighting equipment. We can, however, advise you as to the relationship of your device to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting administered by this agency, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the standard was issued. With respect to your installation of the lamp on your own truck, this agency has no regulations that would govern such an action. The acceptability of this device w ould be determined under the laws of the individual States in which a vehicle so equipped is registered and operated. We are unable to advise you on State law and recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for gu idance, at 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

We assume that your interest in selling the lamp is as an aftermarket accessory to truck owners. If the lamp is installed by the owner of the truck, once again there are no Federal standards that apply to it, only the laws of the individual States. How ever, if the lamp is installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, under Federal law its installation must not render inoperative, either in whole or in part, any of the lighting equipment required by the Federal lig hting standard. To aid these parties in avoiding a violation of that prohibition, you should ensure the wiring does not interfere with the

effectiveness of the wiring of lamps installed in accordance with Federal requirements. Without a photo, we are unsure of the relationship of the location of the courtesy device in either of the two locations you have suggested to the location of other rear lights required by Federal law, such as identification lamps, clearance lamps, stop lamps, turn signal lamps, etc., though you have stated that it is "out of the way" of them. However, your statement indicates that you recognize the importance of e nsuring that the signal from a supplementary lamp not dilute the effectiveness of Federally-required lighting equipment, and we appreciate your concern.

If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,