ID: nht74-5.28

DATE: 03/19/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Girling Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Girling's February 22, 1974, petition for abbreviated labeling on short(Illegible Word) hose in cases where the 6-inch interval required by S5.2.2 of Standard 106, Brake hoses, makes complete labeling impossible.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has modified the labeling requirement of February 26, 1974 (39 FR 7425) by specifying an interval of "not more than 6 inches" to permit the manufacture and labeling of short hose length without waste. Lettering may be any width so long as it is at least one-eighth of an inch high. Your petition, therefore, is denied as unnecessary.

Sincerely,

Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

February 22, 1974

Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Standard No. 106 - BRAKE HOSES (Docket No. 1-5; Notice 8)

Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses (Docket No. 1-5; Notice 8) published in the Federal Register Vol.38, No.218 of November 13, 1974, requires Vacuum Brake Hoses to be labelled at 6 inch intervals with the following information, using letters at least 1/8 inch high -:

1) Symbol DOT

2) Manufacturers identification (for example, GY)

3) Month & year of manufacture (for example, 10/74)

4) Inside diameter of the hose (for example, 13/32)

5) VL or VH

It has become apparent that some brake system installations use vacuum hoses which are less than 6 inches long, sometimes only 1 1/2 inches long - and it appears physically impossible to print all of the above labelling requirements on some of these short vacuum brake hoses.

The various US State legislatures (for example, Pennsylvania) have always accepted this situation in relation to their brake hose labelling requirements and permitted vacuum brake hoses with only items 1) and 3) labelled, adding item 2) if possible.

We would therefore propose that very short vacuum brake hose lengths may be labelled: DOT - 10/74 and if possible: DOT - GY - 10/74.

We would very much appreciate your early, favourable ruling on this proposal.

P. Oppenheimer, Technical Legislation Manager

ID: 15247.df

Mr. John E. Getz
Ellis & Watts
4400 Glen Willow Lake Lane
Batavia, OH 45103

Dear Mr. Getz:

This responds to your May 15, 1997, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the applicability of our safety standards to your vehicles. You were especially interested in the underride protection standard and the antilock braking system (ABS) standard, both of which become effective in 1998.

You explain that your company manufactures custom trailers. You usually purchase new or nearly complete trailers from a trailer manufacturer and "finish them, primarily inside, for specific applications such as medical trailers." You ask:

The question arises when you consider that we take delivery of a complying trailer several months before our sale. Consequently, we can be delivering our completed trailer in April 1998 which was received by us in December 1997 and thus doesn't incorporate either ABS or newer underride protection. Please confirm that our trailers in such a case are in compliance because the original trailer date of manufacture precedes the effective dates for the rules noted.

Our standards apply to any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of the standard. If you purchase a new, complete certified trailer before the effective dates of the underride and ABS standards, for "finishing" after the effective date of the standards, compliance with those standards is optional. The work you perform would probably define you to be an "alterer" under 49 CFR 567.7. An alterer is a person who alters a new vehicle that has previously been certified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or who alters the vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid. Section 567.7 requires alterers to allow the original certification label to remain on the vehicle, and to affix an additional label containing, among other information, the statement:

This vehicle was altered by (individual or corporate name) in (month and year in which alterations were completed) and as altered it conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affected by the alteration and in effect in (month, year). * * *

Section 567.7 provides that "The second date shall be no earlier than the manufacturing date of the original vehicle, and no later than the date alterations were completed. * * * " Under this section, if you are altering a December 1997 vehicle in April 1998, you are permitted to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to the standards in effect in December 1997.

Similarly, if you purchase a new, incomplete trailer (with accompanying documentation, see 49 CFR 568.4), before the effective dates of the underride and ABS standards for completing after the effective date of the standards, you need not certify compliance with those standards. Our requirement for certifying vehicles manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR 568.6) specifies that "Each final-stage manufacturer shall complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates.⁽¹⁾ In the example you provide, the date of manufacture of the incomplete trailer would be which is prior to the effective date of the underride and ABS standards. Thus, those standards would not apply to the vehicle.

I hope this answers your questions. Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you need further assistance.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:567
d.6/24/97

1. Note that 568.6 also specifies that this requirement shall, however, be superseded by any conflicting provisions of a standard that applies by its terms to vehicle manufactured in two or more stages. The underride and ABS standards have no such provision.

ID: GF008360

Mr. Jeff Thompson
Vice President
Timpte Trailer Co.
1827 Industrial Drive
David City, NE 68632

Dear Mr. Thompson:

This responds to your recent letter addressed to Richard Van Iderstine regarding installation of certain auxiliary lighting. Specifically, you ask whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, allows for installation of an auxiliary [1] three-light identification cluster between the taillamps at the lower edge of the trailer. With certain limitations, our answer is yes.

Table II of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that 3 red identification lamps must be located on the top rear of a trailer with an overall width of 80 inches or more, and as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. Identification lamps must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J592e Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps, July 1972, incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108. Paragraph 2.4 of SAE J592e defines identification lamps as "lamps used in groups of three." Your letter and an attached illustration indicate that your trailer satisfies these requirements. We assume that the auxiliary three-light identification cluster would also satisfy these requirements, except for those related to the cluster being at the top of the trailer.

With respect to additional lamps, FMVSS No. 108 does not prohibit installation of auxiliary lighting equipment so long as this equipment does not "impair the effectiveness" of lighting required by the standard. Thus, the three-light identification cluster located at the bottom of the trailer would be acceptable if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required identification cluster at the top of the trailer or the required lamps located at the outer edges of the bottom of the trailer.

After studying your illustration, it appears that the auxiliary cluster would not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting. It would be located several feet below the required cluster, so it would be distinct from that cluster, e.g., it would not appear to be part of a six-lamp cluster. Moreover, it would be located close to the vertical centerline of the trailer, so it would be distinct from the required lamps at the outer edges of the bottom of the trailer. In addition, drivers are used to seeing identification lamps in the same basic location on certain kinds of trailers such as flat-bed trailers.

We note that States also regulate auxiliary lighting devices in various ways.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/14/04





---

[1] We use the term "auxiliary lighting" to refer to any item of lighting equipment that is not required by the terms of FMVSS No. 108.

ID: 77-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/77

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

TO: Alderson Research Laboratories Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Alderson Research Laboratory's July 15, 1977, request for confirmation that Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummy (49 CFR 572), neither requires nor prohibits venting of the abdominal insert specified in drawing No. ATD 3250-2. The agency proposed the addition of leak test specifications to the drawing in August 1975 (40 CFR 33462, August 5, 1975) but they were not made final (42 CFR 7148, February 7, 1977).

Your interpretation that Part 572 neither requires nor prohibits venting of the abdominal insert is correct. The language you cite from the preamble to our February 1977 rulemaking is misleading in suggesting the requirement for venting. The agency more clearly described the requirement in its most recent amendment of Part 572 (42 FR 34299, July 5, 1977), stating that the Part does not "specify an abdominal sealing specification." Agency testing demonstrated conforming results both with and without venting (DOT HS-020875) and sees no reason to control this aspect of dummy design.

SINCERELY,

ALDERSON RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC.

July 15, 1977

Stanley Backaitis National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Crashworthiness

Subject: Abdominal Inserts, 49CFR Part 572

Notice 04 of Docket 73-8 finalized rulemaking on the Part 572 Anthropomorphic Test Dummy, and, in so doing, retracted an earlier proposed change which would have required the abdominal insert of the dummy to be sealed and leak free. It is our clear understanding that this retraction merely reverted the insert back to its original form, which imposed no rigid requirements for either sealing or venting of this component. Indeed, the original specifications for this insert were virtually universally interpreted as leaving the question of venting or not venting entirely discretionary as long as the Part 572 component calibration tests were satisfied.

In conversation with several of our customers, we are informed that widespread opinion exists that notice 04 now absolutely requires the abdominal insert to be vented, despite the fact that the manufacturing drawing (ATD-3250-2) for this component now, as before, provides no definition for any breathing vent. We think that the reason for this belief is based on the wording of the preamble discussion of Notice 04 which states ". . .the leak test has been removed from the drawings and the vent is retained." We respectfully suggest that the addition of the words " as an option" at the end of this phrase would have reenforced the clarity of the retraction of the proposed sealed only specification. We are, accordingly, requesting from the NHTSA a firm declarative statement as to whether or not the NHTSA's current specifications still permit discretionary venting or sealing of the abdominal insert.

Robert Rubenstein Chief Engineer

HUMANOID SYSTEMS DIVISION OF HUMANETICS, INC.

June 3, 1977

Stanley Backaitis NHTSA

We are in the process of revising our test equipment to take into account the new revision of the Part 572 specifications. In this connection, we want to inquire about the added provision that the neck pendulum "shall not reverse direction until T = 123 ms."

We would presume that this means that the minimum time for reversal should be 123 ms, since otherwise the variability of the honeycomb would make this an impossible standard to meet. Can you confirm our interpretation, or if we are in error, could you give us a tolerance on the 123 ms?

Samuel W. Alderson President

ID: nht93-3.3

DATE: April 15, 1993

FROM: Howard M. Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: David L. Boren -- United States Senator

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-30-93 from David L. Boren to Howard Smolkin

TEXT: Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Thomas D. Price of Norman, Oklahoma. Mr. Price is concerned that this agency has not tested his product as part of its research activities relative to heavy vehicle braking stability and control.

By way of background, the heavy vehicle stability and control research of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was undertaken in response to a court case involving a NHTSA Regulation. In 1978, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set aside the stopping distance test requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 (FMVSS No. 121), which the agency had established in 1975. PACCAR, INC. V. NHTSA, 573 F.2d 632, (9th Cir. 1978). As a practical consequence, the stopping distance requirements had the effect of requiring antilock brake systems (ABS) on many heavy vehicles. The Court based its ruling, in part, on a determination that the agency had not established that reliable ABS systems were available which could meet these requirements. The court held that "more provative (sic) and convincing data evidencing the reliability and safety of vehicles that are equipped with antilock and in use must be available before the agency can enforce a standard requiring its installation." 573 F.2d at 643. This ruling effectively precluded the agency from establishing ABS requirements for heavy vehicles without first establishing such a record.

Throughout the early 1980's, the agency conducted an extensive series of tests of ABS systems at our Vehicle Research and Test Center in Ohio. We followed these tests with field tests of ABS systems, beginning in 1988. That work is nearly completed. The field tests were to evaluate the reliability, maintainability, and durability of current generation ABS systems on heavy vehicles.

In selecting the items to be tested, the agency chose the latest available versions of the types of ABS systems that had been at issue in the 1978 court decision. I note that, given our limited research budget, it is not possible for us to test every automotive safety-related piece of equipment that is introduced into the marketplace.

As we stated in our October 5, 1992, letter to Senator Nickles, who had written the agency on behalf of Mr. Price, the purpose of our research in this area is to determine the availability of reliable and practical hardware systems that enhance the stability and control of heavy vehicles while braking. A report on the tractor portion of this research, "An In-Service Evaluation of the Reliability, Maintainability, and Durability of Antilock Braking Systems (ABS) for Heavy Truck Tractors," was published in March of 1992. The report concluded that reliable and practical hardware is available to the heavy vehicle manufacturing and user industry. A report on the trailer portion of

this research is expected to be published in the late summer or early fall of this year.

As Mr. Price is aware, in June 1992, NHTSA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking information about the stability and control performance of heavy vehicles. This notice was issued, in part, in response to a provision of the Motor Carrier Act of 1991 which directed the Secretary of Transportation to initiate rulemaking about, among other things, ABS systems on new commercial vehicles.

NHTSA is reviewing the comments to that notice, including one submitted by Mr. Price, and we expect to make a decision soon about whether to proceed to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Any such notice would provide an opportunity for public comment, and we would carefully consider all comments before issuing a final rule. We encourage Mr. Price to continue to follow this rulemaking and, if a notice of proposed rulemaking is published, to submit any comments that he might have on the proposed requirements.

We appreciate your continued interest in our programs.

ID: nht79-2.41

DATE: 06/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 2, 1979, asking two questions with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question is "if it is permissible to locate clearance lamps up to 13 inches inboard of the outermost extremity of a boat trailer?" You have submitted a drawing approved by NHTSA in 1975, in which the center of the rear clearance lamps are within a zone extending from the edge of a truck to 13 inches inboard.

Standard No. 108 requires rear clearance lamps to be located "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle" (Table II). The zones installed on the truck drawing are at the extreme width of the vehicle at its top, and proper for the configuration shown. The widest part of a boat trailer, however, is at its fenders, but because of its configuration, clearance and identification lamps are necessarily mounted at the bottom of the vehicle rather than at its top. In this location they can be obscured by the load projecting over the rear of the trailer edge if mounted inboard of the fenders whereas outboard mounting renders this improbable. We conclude, therefore, that a mounting 13 inches inboard would not meet the requirement of Table II that clearance lamps be mounted to indicate the overall width of the vehicle.

Your second question is whether "it is permissible to combine a clearance lamp function in a tail lamp fixture if a second bulb is installed in the tail lamp which, when lit alone, satisfies the photometric requirements for the clearance lamp shown through the tail lamp lens . . . and further assuming that all tail lamp photometric requirements are met when the tail lamp bulb alone is lit and when both lamps are lit."

The answer is no. Paragraph S4.4.1 clearly specifies that "no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tail lamp . . . ." The combination lamp you describe would appear to create an optical combination when both bulbs are lit.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

Trailer Manufacturers association

May 2, 1979

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Recently the enclosed information came to our attention where apparently since 1975, an interpretation has existed that the clearance lamps on commercial highway trailers may be up to 13 inches inboard of the outermost extremity of a trailer.

Boat trailer manufacturers would like to take advantage of this same interpretation which would allow clearance lamps to be mounted directly to trailer frame siderails where both the lamp and wiring harness would be better protected than mounted to projecting fenders that owners invariably use as steps. These fenders do not project more than 13 inches, and are normally well forward of the rear of the trailer.

Please advise us if it is permissible to locate clearance lamps up to 13 inches inboard of the outermost extremity of a boat trailer.

A second question is if it is permissible to combine a clearance lamp function in a tail lamp fixture if a second bulb is installed in the tail lamp which, when lit alone, satisfies the photometric requirements for the clearance lamp shown through the tail lamp lens --- and further assuming that all tail lamp photometric requirements are met when the tail lamp bulb alone is lit and when both bulbs are lit.

Director of Engineering

Donald I. Reed

KEY

(Illegible Lines)

NOTES

(Illegible Lines)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-2.23

DATE: 10/25/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This is in response to your letter of March 29, 1979, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (49 CFR 571.115). We are sorry for the delay in responding.

You wish to know whether the "body number" that Blue Bird Body Company assigns to its school buses will satisfy the requirement of S4.5.3.3 that the last six characters of the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) represent the production sequence of the vehicle. Your concern arises from the fact that the "body number" does not indicate the true numerical sequence of manufacture. As explained in Notice 5 (43 FR 36448) and Notice 6 (43 FR 52246) the production sequence represents the "number sequentially assigned by the manufacturer in the production process" (S4.5.3.3), rather than the numerical sequence of actual manufacture. Consequently, the Blue Bird body number may be used as the production sequence number since the "body numbers" are sequentially assigned when purchase orders for the buses are received.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 29, 1979

Mr Joseph L. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington D.C. 20590

Reference: 1. FMVSS 115 Vehicle Identification Number Amendment dated March 27, 1979 2. Telephone conversation by Bob DuMond with Nelson Erickson, NHTSA on March 13, 1979

Dear Mr. Levin:

I am writing with reference to section S 4.5.3.3 of the above Federal Standard and seek your approval of our interpretation of the term "production sequence number" contained within this section.

As a manufacturer of a forward control type of school bus, Blue Bird Body Company will be required to develop a VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) as referenced in the Federal Standard. Blue Bird assigns a body number to each vehicle as soon as a purchase order is accepted. This unique number forever establishes the identity of each vehicle. All pertinent body and chassis information can be determined by knowing this number. Body and chassis service numbers are set up for the customer use in handling service problems. These numbers indicate exact production sequence of the separate body and chassis. Also, our Federal Certification records establish the day that the vehicle was certified. However, permanent files can be accessed at any time by using any of these numbers for information relative to each unique vehicle.

Our plan is to reduce error in the VIN by having the number computer generated. All pertinent information required by FMVSS 115 will be carried in our computer files. Because the body number is the earliest number assigned to the vehicle, Blue Bird would seek to use this number as the "production sequence number". However, due to early assignment of this number, sometimes six months prior to production, this body number will not indicate true numerical sequence. However, the importance of the value of this particular number as identified by NHTSA for recall campaign, etc. would ideally be the one for Blue Bird to use.

Therefore, I seek your approval of the use of the Blue Bird Body Company

"body number" as the "production sequence number." I am looking forward to your favorable response. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

WGM:oct

cc: VIN Committee

ID: nht93-2.18

DATE: March 16, 1993

FROM: Bob Brinton -- Friction Advisory Service

TO: Office of Chief Council -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Interpretation of Parking

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-6-93 from John Womack to Bob Brinton (A41; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 12-9-76 from Frank A. Berndt to Leon W. Steenbock (Std. 121)

TEXT: According to FMVSS 121 a mechanical locking device must be in place within 3 seconds of actuating the parking brake control. In the case of some vehicles, especially refuse type trucks with right hand side drive, there are several systems that use either an I.C.C. flip switch valve or a push pull valve to park the vehicle on air only when the driver leaves the vehicle to pick up trash. The air park is used so that spring brakes are not applied avoiding extreme wear cycles on the spring. Is this type of parking considered legal or should all vehicles when they are parked and the driver leaves the cab have a mechanically held parking brake function? It is my understanding that new O.E.M. certified vehicles are being built with this air park work brake and many right hand drive conversion companies are also installing this type of air park configuration.

As an accident investigator I need to know if NHTSA considers this air park illegal or non-certifiable to meet the intentions of FMVSS 121 Sec. 5.6.3. Your prompt attention to this request is appreciated.

ID: 23085.ztv

Paul Jackson Rice, Esq.
Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, PLLC
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-5339





Re: Request for Interpretation





Dear Mr. Rice:

This is in reply to your letter of May 2, 2001, requesting an interpretation on behalf of your client, Feel Good Cars Inc. (FGC) of Ontario. Specifically, you would like to know whether "under Federal law and applicable NHTSA regulations the FGC Renault Dauphine would be considered a restored antique vehicle excepted under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30112(b)(9) or a newly manufactured vehicle subject to current applicable motor vehicle safety standards."

To assist us in our reply, you enclosed a copy of a "Recommendation Report" prepared for FGC and titled "Restoration and Conversion of Renault Dauphines to the Optional 1959-1961 'Henney' Electric Propulsion Package" (the Report) dated December 4, 2000, and a copy of a letter from Transport Canada dated March 20, 2001, advising that the FGC vehicle would be an "antique vehicle" under Canadian law, and therefore outside the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada).

We have no definition of "restored antique vehicle." Section 30112(b)(9), which you cite, allows importation of "a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old" without the need to conform the vehicle to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that may have applied to it as of the date of its manufacture. Thus, the issue is whether we can regard the FGC Renault Dauphine as a motor vehicle that is more than 25 years old.

I am enclosing a copy of our letter of September 29, 1999, to John Harland of HarLand Rover Restorations. Mr. Harland described the modifications he made to Land Rovers as "restorations." We defined a restored vehicle as one that has been returned to its "former, original, normal, or unimpaired condition." We concluded that Mr. Harland's operations were sufficiently extensive that he was not a restorer but a "manufacturer" of motor vehicles, and that "the extent of disassembly of the original vehicle, the substitution of equipment not used in the original vehicle such as the engine and frame, and reassembly with certain items of new equipment" resulted in a new vehicle, one that could not be regarded as 25 years or older.

Similarly, given the overall operations being conducted by Feel Good Cars, including but not limited to the extent of disassembly of the original vehicle, the substitution of a new and different type of power plant, and reassembly with certain items of new equipment, we do not regard these cars as 25 years or older.

You may also wish to call your client's attention to the possibility of obtaining a temporary exemption for its low-emission motor vehicle (49 CFR 555.6(b)).

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.8/23/01

ID: 2985yy

Mr. Dan P. Strauser
Manager - Research and Development
Elgin Sweeper Company
1300 W. Bartlett Road
P.O. Box 537
Elgin, IL 60121-0537

Dear Mr. Strauser:

This responds to your letter of March 25, 1991 regarding the applicability of this agency's safety standards to a number of models of Elgin and Ravo street sweepers.

In general, all vehicles classified as "motor vehicles" are subject to safety standards. Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"Motor vehicle" means 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.

Under a longstanding policy, this agency has regarded vehicles not to be "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Act and therefore not subject to safety standards, despite their use on the highways, if they (1) have an unusual body configuration which sets the vehicles apart from typical highway traffic and (2) have a maximum speed capability of 20 mph or less.

Based upon the literature you provided, the Pelican "SE" and Pelican "P" 3-wheel street sweepers appear to meet these criteria. If the advertised speed ("Up to 20 mph") is the maximum speed these vehicles are capable of, these vehicles would not be considered "motor vehicles" and therefore would not be required to comply with the safety standards. Since the advertised speed of the Whirlwind, Crosswind, and Eagle 4-wheel street sweepers, and the Ravo Model 5000 street sweeper exceeds 20 mph (or the description, i.e., "legal highway speeds", suggests that the vehicle is capable of exceeding 20 mph), these vehicles would be considered "motor vehicles." The information you enclosed on the Ravo Model 4000 street sweeper did not indicate its maximum speed capability. If this vehicle is capable of speeds in excess of 20 mph, it would also be considered a "motor vehicle." Street sweepers which are considered to be "motor vehicles" would be classified as "trucks" and required to comply with all safety standards applicable to trucks. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. You may find a copy of 49 CFR Part 571 at a Federal Depository Library in your State. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of the volume of Title 49 which includes Part 571 from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C., 20402, (202) 783-3238.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:VSA d:5/8/9l