ID: nht94-1.91

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 22, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joe Miller -- Product Support Manager, Load King

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/10/93 from Joe Miller to John Womack

TEXT:

This is in response to your FAX December 10, 1993.

You have informed us that Load King manufactures trailers, selling them to a dealer in Minneapolis who, in turn, sells these trailers to customers/ users. You would like the dealer "to do some finish manufacturing for us." "Specifically, you would like the dealer "to paint the trailers, install operational decals and place the conspicuity striping." You ask whether "primed trailers can be moved without conspicuity striping in this case."

The answer is no. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and its regulations, when a completed motor vehicle is delivered to its dealer, it must be certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and it must, in fact, comply with all such standards at the time of delivery. Thus, your trailers are required to be equipped with the conspicuity treatment at the time of shipment since the treatment is a requirement of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The Minneapolis dealer, however, may apply paint and decals since this is not required under Standard No. 108 or any other regulation.

Were the trailer one that is manufactured in more than one stage, our regulations would permit the final stage manufacturer to apply the conspicuity treatment since that manufacturer is required to affix the necessary certification of compliance with all standards upon completion of the final stage of manufacture. However, painting and application of the conspicuity treatment are regarded as minor finishing operations that do not rise to the level of being a separate stage of manufacturing, and this ex ception is not available under the facts that have been presented to us.

ID: nht71-5.46

DATE: 08/19/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: National Ready Mixed Concrete Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 1971, concerning the applicability (@ 573.3) of the Defect Reports regulations (Docket No. 69-31: Notice 2) published February 17, 1971 (36 F.R. 3064). In your letter you ask,

"If a concrete truck mixer manufacturer is notified of a defect (on brakes, for example) and the concrete truck mixer manufacturer relays this information to the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer indicates that he will file the necessary defect reports with [the] Administration and then does not, would . . . [the] concrete truck mixer manufacturer be deemed in violation of Part 573?"

The answer to this question is yes. Under the circumstances you describe, both the concrete truck mixer and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer would be in violation of the regulation. Neither manufacturer would be in compliance until one of them filed the report in question, which could be either the defect information report required pursuant to @ 573.4 or the quarterly report required pursuant to @ 573.5.

The NHTSA cannot become involved in disputes between complete and incomplete vehicle manufacturers as to which one of them will furnish the required reports, and the manufacturers concerned must bear the responsibility for deciding this question between themselves.

TRUCK MIXER MANUFACTURERS BUREAU

Mr. Laurence R. Schneider Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Administration

We have reviewed the final rule making on defect reports which appeared in the Federal Register on February 17, 1971, and I have a question relative to Section 573.3 -- "Applications".

Section 573.3 provides that "In the case of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, compliance by either the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle or one of the subsequent manufacturers of the vehicle with(Illegible Word) and 573.5, with respect to a particular defect, shall be considered compliance by both the incomplete vehicle manufacturer and the subsequent manufacturers."

If a concrete truck mixer manufacturer is notified of a defect (on brakes, for example) and the concrete truck mixer manufacturer relayes this information to the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer indicates that he will file the necessary defect reports with your Administration and then does not, would, under such circumstances, a concrete truck mixer manufacturer be deemed in violation of Part 573?

Your prompt response to this question would be grately appreciated.

Stephen C. Royer Director of Governmental Relations National Ready Mixed Concrete Association

ID: 86-6.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: STEPHEN T. WAIMEY -- LEBEOUF, LAMB, LEIBY AND MACRAE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/17/86 RE FMVSS 103 AND 104, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM STEPHEN T. WAIMEY AND DEAN HANSELL OCC-0349

TEXT: Dear Mr. Waimey:

This responds to your letter regarding the method of determining the windshield areas required to be cleared under Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, and Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

You state in your letter that your client, Porsche, is considering a windshield design that would be five percent smaller than the area of the windshield or glazing surface established as Area "A" in Standard No. 104. Area "A" is the largest of the three windshield areas, designated in that standard as areas "A," "B," and "C." Each of these areas is required to have a certain percentage defrosted within a specified time period under Standard No. 103. Similarly, each of these areas is required to have a certain percentage wiped under Standard No. 104. These areas are established by the angles which are set forth in the SAE Recommended Practices and referenced in Standards Nos. 103 and 104. Paragraph S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 states that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must also be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening.

You also say in your letter that you understand that the percentages of the "A" area of the windshield, which are required to be cleared under these standards, are based on actual windshield size, less a one-inch border, rather than the theoretical windshield size that is derived using the specified angles in the referenced SAE procedures. You conclude that only the portion of Area "A," for example, which falls on an actual windshield, less a one-inch border, need be used in calculating the percentageswhich are required to be cleared under these standards.conclude that any portion of Area A which falls outside a windshield's actual size is immaterial with regard to the areas required to be cleared under these standards.

2

The agency believes your interpretation of Area "A" is correct, for the following reasons. Unlike the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 128, Fields of Direct View, which was issued and rescinded in 1981, Standards Nos. 103 and 104 were not intended to regulate the size of structural and other obstructions in the driver's field of direct view. Paragraph S4.2 of Standard No. 103 requires each passenger car windshield defrosting and defogging system to meet the requirements of section 3 of SAE J902, when tested in accordance with paragraph S4.3 of the standard, except that the "entire windshield" specified in SAE Recommended Practice J902 must be that established as Area A in accordance with Standard No. 104.

Thus, Area A is defined according to the requirements of Standard No. 104. Paragraph S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 104 states that Area A of a passenger car windshield must be established as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, using the angles specified in Columns 3 through 6 of Table I, II, III, or IV, as applicable. These tables are set forth in Standard No. 104 and apply to passenger cars of specified overall widths, i.e., from less than 60 inches to 68 or more inches. The angles in these tables vary according to the overall width of the passenger car model. This office agrees that the projection of the correct angles onto an actual windshield surface may produce a projected surface larger than the windshield itself and that only the portion of Area A which is projected onto the actual windshield is material.

Paragraph S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 also limits the percentage of the windshield required to be cleared to that inside the perimeter line on the windshield one inch from the edge of the daylight opening. Since Standard No. 103 references Standard No. 104 for the determination of Area A, this office also agrees that the percentages of the windshield required to be cleared under Standard No. 103 are those inside the perimeter line on the windshield one inch from the edge of the daylight opening.

As an aside, we note that you state in your letter that your conclusion is based on statements contained in SAE Recommended Practices J903c and SAE J902b. Paragraph S4.2 of Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, references SAE Recommended Practice J902, Passenger Car Windshield Defrosting Systems, August 1964, not SAE Recommended Practice J902b, as stated in your letter. Paragraph S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, references SAE Recommended Practice 903a, May 1966, not SAE J903c, as stated in your letter. In any case, we do not believe the quoted statements affect the requirements of either Standard No. 103 or Standard No. 104, because each reference in the safety standards to an SAE Recommended Practice is to a specific portion of it, not to general language such as your quotation.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

ID: 77-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the British Standards Institution's December 2, 1976, request to know what constitutes "first purchase of [a new motor vehicle] in good faith for purposes other than resale" as this phrase is used on @ 108(b)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1) and @ 567.7 of NHTSA regulations (Part 567 -- Certification). You also ask to know the legal basis for any distinction between "original equipment" and "replacement equipment" as those terms are used in regulation of motor vehicles and equipment in the United States.

I can confirm your understanding of @ 567.7 of our regulations, as set forth in the statements which you designate as "(a)" and "(b)". With regard to statement "(b)", @ 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits, except in the process of repair, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle incompliance with an applicable standard. Thus a dealer could not make the sunroof alteration if he knew that installation rendered inoperative the minimum roof crush capabilities specified by Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance.

Your statement designated "(c)" is not necessarily correct. The NHTSA's interpretation of the meaning of "first purchase" relies substantially on the modifier "in good faith."

Thus the agency evaluates the circumstances of the purchase with a view to whether or not there is an attempt to circumvent the requirements of law and applicable regulation. For example, when purchasers asked for disconnection of ignition interlock systems by dealers after contracting for the purchase of a vehicle, the agency required that bona fide physical delivery take place without an immediate return of the vehicle to the dealer for disconnection. As a practical matter, the new provision of the Act discussed above (@ 108(a)(1)(A)) prohibits dealer action of this type in the future.

Since the 1974 amendments to the Act, there has been a distinction between "original equipment" and "replacement equipment". I have enclosed a copy of our proposal to implement this distinction for purposes of Federal regulation. I believe your question actually addresses the practices of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. You may wish to contact one or more of those organizations for an answer to your questions.

ID: nht93-2.15

DATE: March 12, 1993

FROM: Scott R. Dennison -- Vice President, Production, Excalibur Automobile Corporation

TO: Robert Hellmuth -- Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-19-93 from John Womack to Scott R. Dennison (A41; Part 555)

TEXT: I am writing on behalf of the Specialty Car Industry in general and Excalibur in particular to offer my input and assistance regarding the alleged debate over the treatment of vehicles replicating pre-safety standard vehicle designs and their compliance with current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This has long been a difficult area for the industry to understand since most of the manufacturers of these vehicles are ultra low volume manufacturers. I was briefly involved with the limousine industry in 1989 when NHTSA began to work cooperatively with them to achieve practical compliance and would like to see the our industry and NHTSA do the same.

As you are aware, the Environmental Protection Agency has created a very specific set of guidelines for the specialty car industry to allow them to produce compliant automobiles without the need for "legitimate" FTP-testing. It is my opinion that the same type of policy is possible to bring the specialty cars up to an acceptable standard where there are those who now fall short. I also believe that we, as a $100 million plus industry, can internally weed out the undesirable, poor quality builders and manufacturers and essentially police ourselves, not unlike the limousine converters. The biggest hurdle this industry faces is a way to interpret and apply the "rules" in a cost effective manner which will allow us to remain in business.

I am aware that the "Hot Rod" industry is heavily engaged in the same type of effort at this time. However, they have an advantage that we do not have as most hot rods and muscle cars were produced by major "legitimate" manufacturers and were "real" cars at one time. Even though we may build a car replicating a 1934 Mercedes or a 1966 Cobra, we are still building a 1993 vehicle requiring 1993 compliance. In most cases, the original body style necessary for marketing reasons does not readily lend itself to current compliance regulations. Ergo, our dilemma.

I would like to hear your opinion and would look forward to participating in the decision making process wherever possible. Please let me know what I can do to assist. I am looking forward to your response.

ID: 11615ZTV

Mr. Jerry Jones
341 Jean Street
Mill Valley
CA 94941

Dear Mr. Jones:

We have received your letter of February 20, 1996, with respect to a motorcycle headlamp system that you are developing. Under your system, the headlamp is rotated about the beam axis and in a direction opposite and equal to the banking angle of the motorcycle when it is in a curve.

In its simplest form, a 5-inch motorcycle headlamp is used. A variant allows the lamp to pivot on a vertical axis. A third form "uses multiple miniature quartz reflector lamps commonly used for slide projectors and display lighting." You are interested in learning "how this device could comply with current federal regulations."

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to motorcycle headlighting systems is 49 CFR 571.108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment . Table III of this standard directly incorporates SAE Recommended Practice J566 Headlamp Mountings, January 1960 , and applies it to motorcycle headlamps. It requires that "headlamps and headlamp mountings shall be so designed and constructed that . . . (3) When the headlamps are secured, the aim will not be disturbed under ordinary conditions of service." From your description, it would appear that aim would not be disturbed as your simplest design only rotates the lamp around the beam axis, thus permitting this design. However, the design that allows the lamp to pivot on a vertical axis would disturb horizontal aim within the prohibition of the SAE language quoted above.

In addition, motorcycle headlamps must comply with the specifications of Standard No. 108, none of which permit a lamp of the nature of your third variant.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:4/16/96

ID: nht78-1.46

DATE: 12/05/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 5, 1978 NOA-30

Mr. T. F. Brown Mack Trucks, Inc. P.O. Box 1761 Allentown, Pennsylvania 18105

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your October 10, 1978, letter asking whether you are permitted to mark the certification documents of some of your incomplete vehicles as MACK TRUCKS, INC./RVI. These incomplete vehicles will be manufactured abroad by Renault Vehicules Industriels and imported into the United States by Mack Trucks, Inc.

Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, requires an incomplete vehicle manufacturer to furnish with the incomplete vehicle certification its name and mailing address. Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act states that the term manufacturer includes any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Since your company will be importing these incomplete vehicles and an importer may be considered a manufacturer, it is permissible for you to label incomplete vehicles assembled by Renault with the MACK TRUCKS, INC./RVI designation.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

October 10, 1978

Ms. Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

SUBJECT: Vehicle Certification MACK TRUCKS, INC./RVI

Mack Trucks, Inc. and Renault Vehicules Industriels (RVI) are negotiating an agreement whereby Mack would market Saviem trucks in the United States and Canada under the Mack name. Our current plan is to have the vehicles manufactured by RVI with the "MACK" letters on the front of the cab and shipped to the U.S. After their arrival at a U.S. port, the vehicles will be shipped to Mack branches and distributors throughout the U.S. and Canada. Mack Trucks will not perform any manufacturing operations on these vehicles.

It is our desire to furnish all certification documents with "MACK TRUCKS, INC./RVI" listed as the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. The incomplete manufacturer's address, when required, would be listed as:

MACK TRUCKS, INC./RVI Box M Allentown, Pa. 18105

We would appreciate your comments on this proposed practice.

Very truly yours,

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

T. F. Brown Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations and Standards

vy

ID: 86-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert C. Shaver -- Mohawk Customs Service

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert C. Shaver Mohawk Customs Service Air Cargo Building Hancock International Airport North Syracuse, NY 13212

This responds to your letter to this office, asking whether there was some procedure whereby you could import new truck tires into this country, if those tires do not have the name of the manufacturer on the sidewall. You enclosed an invoice with a note written by a Customs Service officer stating that much tires do not conform with the requirements of our tire standards, because the "tires bear no brand name." Our tire standards do not require that new truck tires have the manufacturer's name or a brand name on the sidewall. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.119). This is the standard applicable to new truck tires. Section S6.5 of this standard lists all of the information that must appear on the sidewalls of all new tires subject to Standard No. 119. As you see, there is no requirement that either the manufacturer's or a brand name appear on the sidewall of these tires. The tire is required to have a tire identification number which identifies the manufacturer. It is possible that the Customs Service was confusing the requirements for truck tires with those for passenger car tires. New passenger car tires are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 119. As you see, there is no requirement that either the manufacturer's name or a brand name appear on the sidewall of these tires. The tire is required to have a tire identification number which identifies the manufacturer. It is possible that the Customs Service was confusing the requirements for truck tires those for passenger car tires. New passenger car tires are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.109; copy enclosed). Section S4.3.2 does require that new passenger car tires be "labeled with the name of the manufacturer, or brand name and number assigned to the manufacturer." However, the tires you are seeking to import are not subject to this requirement, because they are not passenger car tires. I suggest that you show this letter to the appropriate officers of the Customs Service, and ask then to reconsider their determination that the tires you seek to import do not comply with Standard No. 119. If you have any further questions in this area, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: 1984-2.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 7, 1984

FROM: WILLIAM R. WILLEN -- MANAGING ATTORNEY, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

TO: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9/13/84 FROM WILLIAM R. WILLEN, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., TO FRANK BERNDT, NHTSA; [A26; REDBOOK 3; PART 556]

TEXT: Pursuant to your letter of July 3, 1984 and Part 573.5, we are submitting a Defect and Noncompliance Information Report regarding FMVSS No. 218 as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

1. Name of Manufacturer of Hondaline Helmets:

Bell Helmets, Inc.

Shoei Safety Helmet Corp.

Name of Manufacturer of Hondaline Headsets:

Clarion Corporation of America

Panasonic Industrial Company

Division of Matsushita

Electric Company of America

2. Identification of Helmets Containing the Noncompliance: Mfg. Model Hondaline Helmet Name Model Year Bell Star International Road Race, Hawk 1982 Bell Tourstar Tour Sport, Hawk 1982 Shoei S-12 & S-22 Britestripe, Stag & Hawk 1982 " Interstate, Stag & Hawk 1982 " Custom, Stag & Hawk 1982 " Britestripe, Stag & Hawk 1981 " Interstate, Stag & Hawk 1981 " Custom, Stag & Hawk 1981

Mfg. Model Hondaline Helmet Name Model Year Shoei S-22 & ER-5 Aspencade, Stag & Hawk 1983 " Interstate, Stag & Hawk 1983 " Britestripe, Stag & Hawk 1983 Bell Star International Road Race, Hawk 1983 Bell Tourstar Tour Sport, Hawk 1983 Shoei S-22 & ER-5 Aspencade, Stag & Hawk 1984 " Interstate, Stag & Hawk 1984 " Tour Sport, Stag & Hawk 1984 Shoei ER-5 Modified Super Sport, Hawk 1984

3. Total Number of Helmets Containing the Noncompliance:

All Hondaline helmets which have the headsets installed. However, our records indicate approximately 20,000 headsets have been distributed by American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

4. The Percentage of Helmets Estimated to Contain the Noncompliance:

100% of those helmets which have the headsets installed but not more than 20,000.

5. A Description of the Defect or Noncompliance, Including both a Brief Summary and a Detailed Description, with Graphic Aids as Necessary, of the Nature and Physical Location (if applicable) of the Defect or Noncompliance:

Audio speakers fitted to the interior of motorcycle helmets distributed by American Honda Motor Co., Inc. do not comply with the requirements of FMVSS 218. Section 5.5 of FMVSS 218 states, in pertinent part: "A helmet shall not have any rigid projections inside its shell."

6. In the Case of a Defect, A Chronology of all Principle Events that were the Basis for the Determination that the Defect Related to Motor Vehicle Safety, Including a Summary of all Warranty Claims, Field or Service Reports, and Other Information, with their Dates of Recepit:

Not Applicable.

7. In the Case of a Noncompliance, the Test Results or other Data on the Basis of which the Manufacturer Determined the Existance of the Noncompliance: Late April, 1984 - American Honda Motor Co., Inc., was notified by Shoei of a possible noncompliance as a result of their recent awareness of the size and shape of the eternally mounted headsets.

May 1, 1984 - American Honda Motor Co., Inc. stopped all sales of the headset units and initiated an investigation.

May 17, 1984 - Meeting between American Honda and NHTSA personnel at the Office of Compliance.

June 14, 1984 - Petition to NHTSA for Exemption for InConsequential Noncompliance.

8. A Description of the Manufacturer's Program for Remedying the Noncompliance:

A Petition for Examination for Inconsequential Noncompliance was filed with your office on June 14, 1984.

9. Notices, Bulletins and Other Communication that relate to the Noncompliance: Not Applicable.

ID: 2915yy

Mr. Mark A. Pacheco
Vice President
Innovative Industries
of Tampa, Inc.
5126 Le Tourneau Circle
Tampa, FL 33610

Dear Mr. Pacheco:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about the application of Federal regulations to your client's product. This product, called a "Walk Machine," looks like a two-wheeled scooter, with a small 37cc engine attached to it. You stated that this product is designed for off-road use.

NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A]ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

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

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways 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 found the vehicle to be 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 found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

Your letter did not indicate whether the "Walk Machine" would be designed and sold solely for off-road use, or whether it would be used on-road for a substantial amount of time. However, based on your letter, this vehicle would not be a "motor vehicle" even if it is regularly used on the public roads. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) and have an abnormal configuration which readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. The information provided for the "Walk Machine" indicates that it has a top speed of 16 mph and a configuration that would readily distinguish it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles.

Because this vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," none of this agency's standards apply to it. You may wish to contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply to this vehicle. Their address is: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20207. You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your client's product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at: 4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:VSA d:4/l/9l