ID: nht80-3.3

DATE: 06/11/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Flyer Industries Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 7, 1980, letter asking whether you would be exercising due care if you alter the test procedures in Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You propose to change the brake linings that are currently used on some of your vehicles. You would prefer to conduct decelerometer and stopping distance tests to assure compliance of your vehicles and dispense with the dynamometer test requirements.

The test requirements of Standard No. 121 are a means of establishing that you are in compliance with the performance requirements of the standard. However, like all of the agency's safety standards, it is not legally required that a manufacturer conduct the tests as they are stated in the standard if the manufacturer has an alternate procedure such as computer simulation, mathematical calculation, etc. which it is confident can equally prove the compliance of its vehicles. It is up to the manufacturer to establish in its own mind that any alternate procedure is an exercise of due care adequate to assure it would conform to the standard if the actual tests were conducted.

With respect to the particular test that you propose to conduct, the agency notes that the stopping distance and decelerometer tests are used to test for several aspects of brake performance that are regulated by the standard. The dynamometer tests are used to establish the fade resistance and recovery performance of the brake linings. The agency does not believe that stopping distance tests alone can measure, in particular, the fade resistance of the brake linings. Accordingly, we do not believe that you could certify your vehicle in compliance without some tests or analysis for fade resistance. This does not mean that you must conduct the dynamometer test, however, if you have another technique which you believe adequately measures the fade resistance of the linings.

SINCERELY,

FLYER INDUSTRIES LIMITED

April 7, 1980

The Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sirs:

We presently manufacture a transit coach certified for FMVSS 121 at a providing ground. Due to customer request, a brake lining deviation from the certified ABB80 to Carlisle B33 is required. Local dynamometer testing is extremely difficult.

Our proposal is to conduct deoelerometer and stopping distance tests to compare lining performance. Full service tests at both loads and on both surface co-efficients would be done, as these were most marginal during the proving ground test. (See charted results.) It is not planned to outfit the new linings with themocouples. If performances are as good or better than for the linings that were certified, we would take this as sufficient evidence of compliance.

Please advise if such testing, fully documented, would be considered due care. Prompt reply to enable test scheduling, will be greatly appreciated.

Todd Smith

CC: B. MOSS

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht94-9.1

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 14, 1994

FROM: James M. Keitges -- President, Native American Motorcycle Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/3/94 from James Womack to James M. Keitges (A42; VSA Sect. 103(d))

TEXT:

Please allow me to introduce you to the Native American Motorcycle Company. The company is in the process of organizing to become the O.E.M. for large displacement motorcycles. We are currently sifting through information in order to comply with all Federal regulations as they apply to the manufacturing of motorcycles.

In order to make this task as succinct as possible, I am writing to request a statement from your office. The statement should confirm that once the company has complied with all Federal NHTSA statutes, regulations and standards, then the company has also complied with the State and Local requirements as applicable to NHTSA.

This statement will expedite our research and result in quicker compliance at all levels. Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to working with your office in the future.

ID: nht94-1.20

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 14, 1994

FROM: James M. Keitges -- President, Native American Motorcycle Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/3/94 from James Womack to James M. Keitges (A42; VSA Sect. 103(d))

TEXT:

Please allow me to introduce you to the Native American Motorcycle Company. The company is in the process of organizing to become the O.E.M. for large displacement motorcycles. We are currently sifting through information in order to comply with all Fed eral regulations as they apply to the manufacturing of motorcycles.

In order to make this task as succinct as possible, I am writing to request a statement from your office. The statement should confirm that once the company has complied with all Federal NHTSA statutes, regulations and standards, then the company has al so complied with the State and Local requirements as applicable to NHTSA.

This statement will expedite our research and result in quicker compliance at all levels. Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to working with your office in the future.

ID: 86-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Ivie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Wayne Ivie Manager, Support Section Oregon Department of Transportation Motor Vehicles Division 1905 Lana Avenue N.E. Salem, Oregon 97314

Dear Mr. Ivie:

Thank you for your letter concerning Oregon's new vehicle code. You asked us to review the code and comment on possible Federal preemption of Oregon's laws for motor vehicle equipment. We apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

On March 19, Ms. Hom of my staff explained in a telephone conversation that this office is unable to undertake a general review of your state vehicle code as you requested. It would be more appropriate if your legal department reviewed your requirements.

Your letter also requested a clarification of our regulatory definition of a "bus." You asked whether we have a definition of a "bus" separate from definitions for "school buses" or "commercial motor buses." You appeared to question whether privately-owned passenger vans would be classified as buses since Oregon currently considers 15-passenger vans as either "passenger vehicles" or "trucks."

NHTSA's regulatory definitions for motor vehicles, issued for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, are set forth at 49 CFR Part 571.3. We define a "bus" as a motor vehicle, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons. This definition would include 15-passenger vans, and would thus apply to both commercial motor coaches and privately-owned 15-passenger vans.

Our definition of a "bus" is separate from our "school bus" definition. While the latter term incorporates our "bus" definition, it includes further criteria based on the intended use of the vehicle. Under Part 571.3, a "school bus" is a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events (excluding common carriers in urban transportation). If a new 15-passenger van were sold for school transportation purposes, it would be considered a "school bus" and would have to comply with NHTSA's school bus safety standards.

For purposes of understanding the interaction between Federal and state vehicle definitions, it is important to distinguish NHTSA's motor vehicle safety standards from state safety standards. State motor vehicle safety regulations apply to the sale and use of motor vehicles. Oregon's vehicle definitions are relevant for determining state requirements applicable to the sale and use of particular classes of motor vehicles. On the other hand, our regulations apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, and our definitions specify categories of vehicles subject to appropriate Federal motor vehicle safety standards. New vehicles included within particular categories must be certified as complying with the safety standards applying to that vehicle type. The applicability of our safety standards to a vehicle is not altered by the fact that a vehicle type is classified differently under state law. Thus, although Oregon classifies 15-passenger vans as passenger vehicles or trucks, manufacturers of new 15-passenger vans must manufacture those vehicles to Federal safety standards for buses, or school buses if intended for school use.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

NHTSA Jeffrey Miller, Chief Council US DOT 400 7th Street S. W. Washington D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

We are reviewing the equipment portions of our new vehicle code. I know that some of our equipment laws, especially those that pertain to "approval" of certain equipment may be in conflict with current federal regulations and laws.

Copies of the equipment chapters from our "new" vehicle code are enclosed. I will appreciate any comments and suggestions you may be able to give us in suggesting changes in our equipment laws, especially with respect to federal standards.

There is one other problem that perhaps you can help us with--is there a "bus" definition in the Federal Code which could help us uniquely define a bus that is not used as a commercial motor bus, or as a school bus?

We do not have a registration classification of a multi-purpose passenger vehicle. And, if the definition of a bus were to State it is a vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, it could include privately owned and used passenger vans. Under our registration classification, vans designed for 15 persons can presently be registered as passenger vehicles, so long as their loaded weight remains under 8,000 pounds. If over 8,000 pounds, they could be classified as trucks. The GVWR of a vehicle is not a consideration in classifying them for registration purposes.

We will appreciate and help you can give.

Very truly yours,

Wayne Ivie Manager, Support Section Telephone (503) 378-2057

WI/ao

Enc.

ID: nht72-5.49

DATE: 02/03/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wickes Manufactured Housing

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 13, 1971, concerning your conversation with Michael Peskoe regarding "the provisions of Section 566.5, Manufacturer Identification." You ask two questions, which concern that regulation, the Certification regulations, and regulations concerning "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages" (49 CFR Parts 567, 568).

Your first question is whether, "as a manufacturer of Modular Homes, which are built in a factory and then transported on a low-bed type trailer to the job site, are we required to label our units the same as a mobile home?" The requirements for labeling are found in Parts 567 and 568, and are part of the requirement that manufacturers certify compliance with all motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the particular vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment they manufacture. Modular homes are not motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C @ 1381 et seq.) and accordingly there are no requirements that they be certified or labeled.

Your second question is as follows: " . . . we do manufacture some of these low-bed trailers, they are strictly for our own use in transporting our modular homes, and in this case are we required to submit this report and also label any trailers we would build in the future?" Trailers are motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and are required to comply with applicable standards. They are also required to be certified by the manufacturer in accordance with the Certification regulations (Part 567), and as a manufacturer of trailers you are required to submit the information specified in Part 566.

A copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and Parts 566, 567, and 568 are enclosed, as is a notice describing how to obtain a copy of the motor vehicle safety standards.

ID: nht76-4.7

DATE: 05/21/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood NHTSA

TO: Department of the Army

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 13, 1976, request for written confirmation that the requirements of paragraph S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, do not preclude the use of brake fluid dispensing devices which are used without attachment to the brake fluid container.

Paragraph S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 116 specifies the information that packagers of brake fluids are required to place on the outside of the brake fluid container. Subsection (g) of this paragraph specifies four warnings that must be marked on the container. These labeling requirements apply only to the brake fluid container. The requirements do not apply to use of the brake fluid, and therefore do not create duties on the part of the user to abide by the warnings. The purpose of these requirements is only to ensure that purchasers are warned of potential safety hazards that can result from improper use and storage of the product.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

APRIL 13, 1976

OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

Reference is made to Title 49 - Transportation, Chapter V - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT), Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Motor Vehicle Hydraulic Brake Fluids, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116.

This Headquarters has issued a Solicitation IFB DAAA09-76-B-6363 for a quantity of automotive hydraulic brake system filler-bleeders.

One of the potential competitors on this procurement (i.e., Bowes Seal Fast Corporation, (Bowes)) has brought into issue the Department of Transportation FMVSS No. 116 in relationship to the specification cited in this solicitation (Incl 1). Specifically, Bowes contends that the required item under Mil-F-19849C dated 14 May 1969, Type I, Class A, Size 1, violates the requirement of FMVSS No. 116, paragraphs S5.2.2.2., (g) 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Our engineering staff is of the opinion that the requirements of FMVSS No. 116 properly applies only to the producer, packager, wholesaler, retailer and user for storage purposes, but has no relationship to the dispensing device used to fill any vehicles hydraulic brake systems.

Contact has been made with Mr. Sid Williams and Mr. Fred Redler of your office and they have orally confirmed that our engineering staffs' view of this matter is correct. Written verification of this fact is requested so that a final reply can be made to Bowes. Your prompt attention to this request will be appreciated. It is also requested that you forward the latest Series 100 and 300 Standards.

Sincerely yours,

MARVIN L. (Illegible Word) -- Chief, Procurement Law Division

1 Incl As stated

BOWES SEAL FAST CORPORATION

March 24, 1976

General William E. Eicher -- U. S. Army (Illegible Word) Command

Dear Sir:

Subject: FILLER-BLEEDER, HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEM, AUTOMOTIVE NSN 4910-00-273-3658 (Formerly FSN 4910-273-3658)

Inasmuch as our Company is a small business, and manufacturer of equipment in the above category, that category is of interest. We are also government contractors and sub-contractors. Following is a tabulation of contract awards from your Command of which we find record in Commerce Business Daily: Solicitation No. DAAF03-72-B-1405 DAAA09-74-B-6988 Applicable Document Cited T&E PD-58B T&E PD-82 1969 June 20 1973 September 05 Contract Award DAAF03-73-C-1029-0004 DAAA09-74-D-6033-0001 24 April 1973 8 May 1974 Award Quantity 1,556 Units 1,016 Units Award Amount $ 69,302 $ 70,632

There has been some previous correspondence from this office to your Command on the above procurement. While our correspondence took exception to the procurement, it did not include a protest of contract award. A reply to one of our letters discussed procurement under T&E PD-58B and T&E PD-82, stating "based on higher work load priorities during this time frame, a military specification was not prepared."

Now, we have received current IFB DAAA09-76-B-6363 applying to NSN 4910-00-273-3568 in quantity of 1,597 units with bid opening date of 9 April 1976. The applicable document cited in this solicitation is MIL-F-19849C dated 14 May 1969.

Upon reading MIL-F-19849C, we do not find equipment described to be basically different from that of T&E PD-58B and T&E PD-82, at least as far as IFB DAAA09-76-B-6363 is concerned. The current IFB stipulates Type I, Class A, Size 1 unit with tank capacity of 3 gallons +/- 1/2 gallon. This refers to a storage tank with diaphragm into which hydraulic brake fluid would be transferred from the original container for shop use as needed.

2 Attention is invited to Department of Transportation FMVSS No. 116 published in Federal Register, Volume 36, No. 232, December 2, 1971. FMVSS 116 serves to establish standards for hydraulic brake fluids and their use.

Attached are specimens of labeling, including directions for use, which have been on all Bowes brake fluid containers since 1972. That this label includes the name of our Company is not significant, because all brake fluid marketers now use identical directions. This is as required in FMVSS 116, Section S 5.2.2.2., sub-paragraph (g), outlining the information to be clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container. As will be noticed under the directions of panel 2, the label clearly states brake fluid is to be stored only in its original container, and that a container is not to be refilled.

In our reading of MIL-F-19849C, it appears to be a revision of earlier Specification MIL-F-198488, dated 4 September 1963. It is evident, then, that the specification has not been revised since 14 May 1969, hence is in conflict with FMVSS No. 116, effective 1 March, 1972.

While FMVSS 116 does not specify any particular type of dispenser for the use of hydraulic brake fluid, it does clearly state "store brake fluid only in its original container". It also specifies "do not refill container." This would exclude transferring brake fluid from its original drum or can to a refillable-reusable tank of 3 gallon capacity.

Attached is a catalog-instruction sheet on the Mack Brake Fluid Bleeder-Filler which is manufactured by our Company. This unit passed feasibility testing at your Command in 1971, following which it was approved and a contract issued from General Services Administration under date of February 15, 1972. It does meet the requirement of FMVSS No. 116 in dispensing brake fluid directly from an original closed container. Since pressure for operation of the unit is provided by a spring-loaded cylinder extending into the original brake fluid container, no air line, pressure gauge or water trap is required. Incidentally, we do not see the latter mentioned in MIL-F-19849C, although we question that a diaphragm would always be impervious to moisture in compressed air.

While the Mack Brake Fluid Bleeder-Filler is a product of distinctive quality, safety and convenience, it is not a proprietary item. That it does serve satisfactorily in its intended use is evidenced by repeat orders from original GSA contract buyers. The unit has also been the subject of a "New Equipment Review" letter from your Command.

As will be noted in the tabulation of contracts shown elsewhere in this letter, the cost of procurement increased over 50% from the 1973 award to the 1974 award, or from $ 44.54 to $ 69.52 per unit. In 1976, the Mack Brake Fluid Bleeder-Filler is available to dealers and fleet users from Bowes distributors throughout the United States at $ 18.25. Construction of the unit is of a nature not requiring special packaging. Standard commercial packaging is one unit per corrugated box 6 1/4" x 3 3/4" x 10 1/8", 10 units per master corrugated shipping carton 22" x 10 1/2" x 13 3/4". Shipping in this packaging has not involved any problem of damage in shipment or storage.

While our Company would be pleased to bid the Mack Brake Fluid Bleeder-Filler under IFB DAAA09-76-B-6363, there is no reason to do so as such offer would be considered non-responsive to the solicitation.

In our opinion, MIL-F-19849C has been obsolete for some time, no longer an appropriate criterion for procurement. Therefore, we respectfully ask that Solicitation No. DAAA09-76-B-6363 be canceled pending a thorough review of its subject, and development of an up-to-date revision of MIL-F-19849C.

Cordially yours,

GEORGE E. TALMAGE, Secretary

Copy to: Commander, U. S. Army Tank-Automotive Command, AMSTA-MST National Automotive Center, GSA-FYS; DRXMD-TE, Mr. Van Acker

[Attachments Omitted]

ID: 2452y

Mr. Kenneth E. Tompor
Auto Brokers & Leasing LTd.
4140 S. Lapeer Road (M24)
Pontiac, MI 48057

FAX: 313-373-0565

Dear Mr. Tompor:

This is in reply to your FAX of April 26, l990. You would like a statement from this agency, for purposes of litigation that commences on May 1, that a l985 Ferrari 288 GTO cannot be legally imported into the United States.

Pursuant to amendments made to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) by P.L. 100-562, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, a motor vehicle not originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, cannot, subject to the exception noted below, be imported permanently into the United States on and after January 31, l990, unless the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that it is capable of being readily modified to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or that its safety features comply with or are capable of being modified to comply with all such applicable standards. The Administrator has made no determination with respect to the l985 Ferrari 288 GTO.

However, no such determination is necessary if the following criteria are met at the time of importation.

The importer's assigned place of employment was outside the United States as of October 31, l988, and (s)he has not had an assigned place of employment between that time and the entry of the motor vehicle.

The importer has not previously imported a motor vehicle into the United States before October 31, l988, that was not in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The importer had acquired (or had entered into a binding contract to acquire) the motor vehicle before October 31, l988. The vehicle must be entered not later than October 31, l992. Only if an importer meets these criteria may (s)he at the present time legally import a nonconforming l985 Ferrari 288 GTO into the United States (subject, of course, to the obligation to bring it into compliance with the safety standards after its entry).

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:593 d:4/30/90

ID: nht95-6.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 28, 1995

FROM: Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq. -- Attorney for Liphardt & Associates

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: Petition for Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LAWRENCE A. BEYER (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 556)

TEXT: This petition for inconsequential defect or noncompliance is submitted under 49 CFR Part 558, on behalf of:

Liphardt & Associates 15 Trade Zone Drive Ronkonkoma, NY

a New York State corporation.

[Illegible Lines]

The non-compliance relates to

49 CFR Part 592.5(f) Notification of change of facility information:

49 CFR Part 592.8(e) Hold period for inspection

49 CFR Part 592.6(f) Poor compliance photography

49 CFR Part 592.6(d) Label may not have correctly identified RI

BACKGROUND:

Liphardt & Associates has been a DOT Registered Importer since 1990, concentrating in the importation of noncomplying vehicles from Europe. However in 1994, due to sudden economic conditions, importation of vehicles from the Canadian market to the US market became viable, and there was significant need for Registered Importers to assist in vehicle importation and certification. The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) was also deluged with Canadian vehicle importation situations. Liphardt was approached by a Customs House Broker in upstate New York, and was requested to set up an additional facility for the processing (modification, documentation and holding) of [Illegible Line] this facility. It turns out that Liphardt's control over these vehicles was lost, that the processing was handled by persons other than Liphardt authorized personnel and the inconsequential defect or noncompliance occurred. Liphardt notified OVSC of this situation in February, 1995 and conducted its own investigation. In March, 1995, Liphardt voluntarily suspended all Canadian importations, and met informally with NHTSA staff.

SAFETY COMPLIANCE

NHTSA has reviewed compliance packages submitted on these vehicles, and the vast majority have been deemed sufficient for release of compliance bond.

Canadian vehicles, for the most part, differ from US FMVSS only in the following areas:

1. Odometer may not be labeled KM;

2. Passive restraint systems for passenger cars;

Certification Labels must also be affixed to the vehicles in accordance with 49 [Illegible Word]

Many odometers are labeled KM by the original manufacturer. In any event, the odometer/speedometer is routinely changed to a miles based instrument, since the marketability of kilometer based vehicles is severely impaired. All passenger [Illegible Word] Certification labels may have misnamed the Registered Importer. While this in unfortunate, the purpose of naming the RI on the certification label is to ensure that the responsible RI is known for subsequent defect/recalls. OVSC maintains a very accurate computer system in which the VIN and the responsible RI are listed. Therefore, if a vehicle with the wrong name listed on the RI section of the certification label was involved in a situation where the actual RI needed to be involved, NHTSA could easily provide the correct RI name.

Clearly these defects and non-compliance are not significant and are inconsequential to vehicle safety. Liphardt has tried to work within the regulatory framework to advise OVSC of the situations and seeks this petition and exemption process to finalize this matter.

Liphardt has corrected the cause of the noncompliance and will continue to abide by the duties of a registered importer as defined in 49 CFR 592.

Thank you.

ID: 17691.wkm

Mr. Fred Peltz
Peltz Manufacturing, Inc.
217 West Street
Post Office Box 301
St. Martin, MN 56376

Dear Mr. Peltz:

This responds to your letter of March 26, 1998, to this office and refers to your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on April 7, 1998. You stated that your company manufactures recycling equipment and you inquired whether the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems (49 Code of Federal Regulations 571.121) applies to such equipment. You attached a promotional brochure depicting your equipment which you have named Rotochopper. As discussed below, your Rotochopper would not be considered a motor vehicle and would therefore not be subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS).

You stated that you contract with a company to manufacture axles for your recycling equipment. That company has stated that it can no longer supply such axles without being equipped with ABS unless you have a letter from this agency stating that you are excluded from such requirement. You stated that these axles are installed on your recycling equipment as a base and as a mode of transporting the equipment from your factory to the customer and occasionally from job site to job site. The equipment is designed to spend extended periods of time at off-road job sites and is not intended to be moved around on public highways.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U. S. Code , which is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's authority to establish FMVSSs, defines "motor vehicle" as:

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

49 U.S. Code 30102(a)(6).

In analyzing the information you provided, including the brochure, it is our opinion that your Rotochopper is not a motor vehicle within the statutory definition. It is primarily designed to be used off-road and although capable of being transported on-road from the factory to the customer and occasionally thereafter from one job site to another, its on-road use is only incidental and not the primary purpose for which the equipment was manufactured. This is in contrast to instances in which vehicles such as dump trucks frequently use the public roads and highways going to and from off-road job sites, but stay there for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since their on-road use is more than "incidental."

In summary, your Rotochopper, not meeting the statutory definition of a "motor vehicle," is not required to comply with the FMVSSs, and in particular, the ABS requirements of Standard No. 121.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:121#VSA
d.7/23/98

ID: nht92-6.6

DATE: June 17, 1992

FROM: Mary C. Andrews

TO: Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/6/92 from Paul J. Rice to Mary C. Andrews (A39; Std. 125)

TEXT:

We are in the process of developing a new warning device for motorists to carry in their cars.

It will be a 24 inch high inflatable plastic cone with reflector strips on the sides. It will be weighted down with sand in the enclosed bottom.

Our question to you is would this meet with any and all restrictions the Department of Transportation has for warning devices.

If you would like to see a drawing of the item, we can supply you with one.

Looking forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Thank you.