ID: aiam0912

Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of October 2, 1972, concerning th requirements applicable to a seat belt installed as part of a restraint system conforming to S4.1.2.3 of Standard 208.; You are correct in reading S4.1.2.3 to provide that a seat belt capabl of meeting the injury criteria of Standard 208 is not required to meet Standard 209 except as provided in S7.1 and S7.2 of Standard 208.; We have under consideration a petition from the Japan Automobil Manufacturers Association to amend Standard 209 to reflect the exemption made in Standard 208. The agency's response to the petition will be issued shortly.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0238

Dear Mr. Calhoun: This is in further reply to your letter of April 29, 1970, to th National Commission on Products Safety, that has been referred to this office.; In your letter you ask for our advice as to whether or not there ar any accepted standards for passenger car automobile tires such as weight and size limits. We do have standards for passenger car tires such as weight limit versus ply rating and there are accepted tests to determine the reliability of tires. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 has been established for that purpose. the Standard's requirements are for labeling, which includes maximum inflation pressure and maximum load rating, strength, continuous load-carrying endurance and high speed performance under load.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rim - Passenger Cars, requires, among other things, a placard, permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location. The placard must contain all of the information spelled out in part S.4.3 of that Standard, a copy of which is contained in the enclosed booklet on page 19. Tire labeling requirements along with test procedures are listed under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, on pages 12 through 19.; The tire to which you refer is a 2-ply 4-ply rated tire. The loa ratings for a 855-14 tire can be found on page 15 of the enclosed booklet. The maximum load rating is 1,770 lbs, at the maximum inflation pressure of 32 p.s.i.; It is important for you to note that the test procedures have to d with new tires. We have no procedures for testing tires that have failed.; Although we do not become involved in private litigations, There is publication for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, under the title, 'Automobile Accident Litigation - A report to the Federal Judicial Center to the Department of Transportation,' that might be of interest to you. The price for publishing is $s.75.; We are also enclosing the following publications: >>>The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 Summary of 1968 Compliance Tests Arranged by Standard, that includes General 855-14 tire and, a form letter explaining the Bureau's position relative to test results and where they might be obtained.<<<; We trust this information will be useful to you. Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam0877

Dear Mr. Wilkins: Thank you for your letter of September 19, 1972, to Mr. Franci Armstrong, concerning seat belt model designations.; The intent of paragraph S4.1(k) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 209 is to require different model numbers for seat belt assemblies that differ in basic design concept. We would not consider belt assemblies that differ only in the size or number of cross threads in the webbing to be separate models. On the other hand, a belt assembly that incorporates a push button type buckle would be considered a separate model from an assembly that incorporates a lift cover type buckle.; If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contac us.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: 1985-03.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/17/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas J. Burke Vice President - Domestic Sales Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company 8959 Blue Ash Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45242

Dear Mr. Burke:

Thank you for your letter of July 3, 1985, to Mr. Burdette and Mr. Brownlee concerning a new automobile safety package your company is developing. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. You described your product as a number of modifications to a vehicle to improve its security. The modifications include changes to the windows, tires, doors, and fuel tank. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations would affect your product.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA has issued vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects, including on tires, windows, doors and fuel tanks. I am enclosing an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our standards. A manufacturer of new vehicles must certify that its vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Under our certification regulation, Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567), a person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale to the consumer is considered an "alterer." Part 567.7 requires vehicle alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all of our safety standards. Thus, if your company is modifying vehicles with your security package prior to their first sale to the consumer, it must certify that the vehicles, as altered, conform with all applicable standards. Any person who fails to comply with our certification regulations is subject to person who fails to comply with our certification regulations is subject to civil penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.

If your company is modifying used vehicles, then its actions would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)), which was added to the Act in 1974 to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.....

Thus, manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business making the modifications you describe must ensure that those modifications do not "render inoperative" the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties for persons that "render inoperative" an element of a safety standard.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. Dick Burdette U.S. Dept. of Transportation Office of Public Affairs Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Burdette:

I am writing to you today because I need your assistance in preparing a new automobile safety package for the U.S. Market which Hess & Eisenhardt is about to introduce. We think your input, based on your experience and supported by statistics will prove invaluable.

Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company is the oldest and largest armored car manufacturer in the world. Hess & Eisenhardt originally founded in 1876, was first asked to assist in the design of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Parade Car. For the last forty years, we have provided the armored vehicles for every United States President. Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company currently supplies armored vehicles to over thirty Heads of State worldwide as well as Ambassadors, Foreign Ministers, Diplomats, Industry Leaders, and private citizens.

Let me hasten to point out that we do not intend to introduce an "armored car" into the U.S. Market. Our product is definitely an automobile safety package. We believe that the experience we have gained in the many years we have been involved in automobile security can be provided to the public in a very cost effective manner. We have done extensive market research over the past twelve months and have received an enthusiastic response from the corporate world as well as many individuals. Please forward to me any information and statistics you might be able to provide that would pertain to the following components of our proposed safety package:

o Run Flat Tire Devices. o "New Generation" Shatter Resistant Glass (primarily intended to resist intrusion from the outside while providing an unprecedented shatter resistance to the standard tempered glass used in sidelights. o A highly sophisticated remote alarm system. o Dual batteries. o A trunk release mounted inside the trunk. o A fuel tank protector (with looking gas cap). o An emergency kit to include minor survival components such as: drinking water, flashlight, etc. o A door lock system that would prevent access to a stranger from the outside even if the driver forgets to lock the doors. o Anti-explosive gas tank. o An automatic engine fire suppression system. o Auxiliary fan. o Inside to outside intercom.

Any information you can provide will be greatly appreciated. We are now in the final stages of selecting the safety equipment which will go into our package and your input can help in the final design. As this product is primarily in the interest or the safety of the occupants, we would certainly not want to miss the opportunity to provide some safety feature you thought important. Please contact me directly if you have any other questions.

Sincerely,

HESS & EISENHARDT ARMORING COMPANY

Thomas J. Burke Vice President - Domestic Sales

TJB/7/vah

ID: nht70-2.2

DATE: 04/09/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 2, 1979, to Mr. Clue D. Ferguson, concerning an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111.

In your letter you indicated that the mirror, as mounted in the vehicle, cannot be hit at a 45 degrees angle by a 6.5 inch head form because of the geometric arrangement in your automobile. In this case we would accept the maximum(Illegible Words) Form. We must point out, however, that the test also includes any other angle from the one you describe down to a 45 degrees angle under this horizontal(Illegible Word) S3.1.2.3 of standard No. 111).

Please note that this interpretation is intended to provide(Illegible Line)(Illegible Line)(Illegible Words) a given item of equipment meets applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and he must certify to that effect.

ID: nht90-4.34

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 5, 1990

FROM: Roger C. Fairchild -- Shutler and Low

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-14-90 from P.J. Rice to R.C. Fairchild (A36; VSA 102(3))

TEXT:

We are writing on behalf of a client who wishes to import an off-road vehicle called the Pinzgauer. We request your opinion as to whether this vehicle is considered to be a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, and is therefore subject to motor vehicle safety standards.

The Pinzgauer model in question is a six wheel, six wheel drive (6x6) cross country vehicle that is manufactured by Steyr-Daimler-Puch in Austria. A 4x4 version of the Pinzgauer is also produced, but this request relates only to one 6x6 vehicle. The veh icle has a turbo-diesel engine and is rated at approximately 10,000 pounds GVWR.

Enclosed for your consideration are copies of factory brochures on the vehicle (enclosure 1). As can be seen from the brochures, the vehicle was designed to operate on a wide variety of terrain conditions. Its features, such as locking differentials, 4 5 degree gradeability, 335 mm ground clearance, 40 degree angle of approach, 45 degree angle of departure, and 700 mm deep water fording capability clearly distinguish the Pinzgauer from Jeep-type utility vehicles. The Pinzgauer's unusual body configura tion sets it apart from typical on-road vehicles. As noted in the enclosed letter from the vehicle's manufacturer (enclosure 2), the Pinzgauer "was developed as an off-road vehicle with limited on-road suitability."

The Pinzgauer was designed and is principally used for military purposes. According to the manufacturer, approximately 95 percent of the 1,100 Pinzgauers that are produced annually are sold to the armed forces (see enclosure 2). The U.S. Special Forces have purchased a small number of these vehicles. Examples of military uses of the Pinzgauer include uses as platforms for rocket launchers, anti-aircraft guns, mobile workshops and field medical shelters (see enclosure 3). The importer of the vehicle i n question plans to use the vehicle for off-road, recreational purposes. A photo of the vehicle in question is enclosed (see enclosure 4).

According to Steyr-Daimler-Puch, the one vehicle that competes directly with the Pinzgauer in terms of similarity of product and design philosophy is the Mercedes Unimog. On February 7, 1984, NHTSA determined that the Unimog is excluded from the "motor vehicle" category. (See enclosure 5). It appears that both vehicles provide a platform enabling substantial off-road activity, although the Unimog would appear to be used on-road to a greater extent than the Pinzgauer (for highway maintenance purposes). We see no basis for establishing differing classifications for these directly competitive vehicles, particularly classifications based on a finding that the Unimog is used off-road to a greater extent than the Pinzgauer. To do

so would inappropriately provide a major competitive advantage to one manufacturer over the other.

On March 25, 1982, NHTSA issued an interpretation letter regarding the classification of Pinzgauer vehicles. In that letter (see enclosure 6), the agency stated that the Pinzgauer presents a "borderline case" in terms of classification as a motor vehicl e. The agency concluded that, based on available information, the Pinzgauer appeared to be a "motor vehicle." However, the agency also stated that if additional information on five matters (principally relating to the marketing of the vehicle) were prov ided, the agency might reach a different conclusion. The agency offered to reconsider the matter if such information were provided.

Since the current situation involves an owner of a single vehicle wishing to import the vehicle for personal use and does not involve any plan to market the vehicle commercially, we cannot address several of the five information requests. The point rega rding on-street licensing may not be relevant, due to the nearly exclusive use of the vehicles by national military services. To the best of our knowledge, the only Pinzgauers that have been sold in recent years for use in the United States were purchas ed by the Special Forces. An off-road use warning label would not be of significant value where no sale of the vehicle is intended, but such a label could be affixed, if necessary to assure off-road status.

On the other hand, we believe that certain circumstances distinguish the current matter from the one that was raised in 1982. These circumstances are:

1. The current request relates solely to the 6x6 version of the Pinzgauer. This version has a unique body configuration and drive train which distinguish the vehicle from typical, on-road vehicles and make the vehicle particularly well suited to off-road use. It is our understanding that the 1982 letter related to the entire Pinzgauer line, including the 4x4.

2. On February 7, 1984, NHTSA issued a letter stating that the Unimog is not a "motor vehicle." As noted above, the Unimog is comparable to and directly competitive with the Pinzgauer. We believe that the two vehicles should be regulated in a consisten t manner.

3. It is our understanding that the information submitted with respect to the 1982 consideration of the Pinzgauer by NHTSA did not include substantial information on the manufacturer's principal design intent for the Pinzgauer, for tactical (military), o ff-road use and the high percentage of vehicles that are actually used for such military purposes.

For the reasons set forth above, we believe the 6x6 version of the Pinzgauer is not "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways ..." within the meaning of section 102(3) of the Safety Act. As discussed above, the vehicle's manufacturer has stated that the Pinzgauer "was developed as an off-road vehicle, with limited on-road suitability." We believe that this description of the design intent for the Pinzgauer is particularly true with regard to the 6x6 version; that versi on has a drive-train configuration that is useful in a harsh off-road

environment, but is overdesigned for on-road use.

If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to contact us.

ID: nht88-3.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: D. BURKARD; H. T. EBNER; ALFRED TEVES

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 9, 1981 LETTER FROM BERNDT TO KAWANO, FEBRUARY 3, 1981 LETTER FROM KAWANO TO BERNDT, JULY 10, 1974 LETTER FROM DYSON TO NAKAJIMA, AND MAY 24, 1974 FROM TEVES TO GREGORY

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the brake fluid reservoir requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You raised several issues concerning the standard in regard to a brake system you are considering p roducing. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufa cturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The master cylinder reservoir of your proposed brake system can be described as follows. The master cylinder services two brake circuits, Brake Circuit 1 and Brake Circuit 2, and an ancillary unit which itself services Brake Circuits 1 and 2 directly. The total volume (V) of the master cylinder equals V[1] + V[2] + V[3] + V[4], where:

V[1] represents the volume of an individual compartment (compartment V[1] servicing Brake Circuit 1. The fluid represented by V[1] is not available to Brake Circuit 2 or the ancillary unit.

V[2] refers to the volume of an individual compartment (compartment V[2] servicing Brake Circuit 2. The fluid represented by V[2] is not available to Brake Circuit 1 or the ancillary unit.

The sum of V[3] + V[4] refers to the volume of the portion of the reservoir which provides a common supply to Brake Circuits 1 and 2 and the ancillary unit. V[4] refers to that portion of this volume which is above the level where a fluid level indica tor lamp is activated.

You noted that your proposed brake fluid reservoir design differs from conventional designs in having the exit for the ancillary unit. You stated that you believe your design meets the requirements of sections S5.4.2 and S5.3.1(b), and requested confirm ation of your interpretation.

Section S5.4.2 reads as follows: S5.4.2 Reservoir capacity. Reservoirs, whether for master cylinders or other type systems, shall have a total minimum capacity equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs m ove from a new lining, fully retracted position (as adjusted initially to the manufacturer's recommended setting) to a fully worn, fully applied position, as determined in accordance with S7.18(c) of this standard. Reservoirs shall have completely separa te compartments for each subsystem except that in reservoir systems utilizing a portion of the reservoir for a common supply to two or more subsystems, individual partial compartments shall each have a minimum volume of fluid equal to at least the volume displaced by the master cylinder piston servicing the subsystem, during a full stroke of the piston. . . .

With respect to the requirement expressed in the first sentence of section S5.4.2, you stated that the total volume (V), i.e., the sum of V[1] + V[2] + V[3] + V[4], of your reservoir is "greater or equivalent to fluid displacement resulting when all whee l calipers move from a new lining position to a fully worn lining position." An issue raised by this statement is whether you are correctly calculating the total volume for purposes of section S5.4.2. More specifically, the issue is whether fluid which i s available for use by the ancillary unit, i.e., the fluid represented by V[3] and V[4], can be counted as part of the minimum capacity required by section S5.4.2.

It is our opinion that such fluid can be counted, since, even with the presence of the ancillary unit, the fluid is solely available to the brakes. In an October 9, 1981 interpretation to Toyota (copy enclosed), the agency interpreted section S5.4.2 to require that the minimum fluid capacity requirements be met by fluid which is solely available to the brakes. In that letter, the agency concluded that fluid which was available to both the brakes and the clutch could not be counted, since some or all o f the fluid might be used by the clutch and thus not be available for the brakes. The ancillary unit in your design is not comparable to the clutch, however, since it is part of the brake system and does not use brake fluid for purposes other than for t he brake circuits.

With respect to the requirement expressed in the second sentence of section S5.4.2, your letter indicates that V[1] and V[2] are each greater than or equivalent to the volume displaced by a full stroke of the related master cylinder piston. Given this s tatement, and the fact that compartments V[1] and V[2] are separate compartments such that their fluid is neither available to the other brake circuit or to the ancillary unit, we do not see any particular interpretation question raised by your design fo r this requirement.

For manufacturers choosing to meet Standard No. 105's brake system indicator lamp requirements by means of a fluid level indicator lamp, section S5.3.1(b) requires activation of the lamp under the following condition:

A drop in the level of brake fluid in any master cylinder reservoir compartment to less than the recommended safe level specified by the manufacturer or to one-fourth of the fluid capacity of that reservoir compartment, whichever is greater.

With respect to this requirement, you stated that (V[1] + V[3]) is greater than or equivalent to one-fourth of (V[1] + V[3] + V[4]), and that (V[2] + V[3]) is greater than or equivalent to one-fourth of (V[2] + V[3] + V[4]). An issue raised by this stat ement is whether you are counting the correct fluid in determining the minimum warning level specified in section S5.3.1(b).

The issue of which fluid should be counted in determining the minimum warning level specified in section S5.3.1(b) was addressed in the letter to Toyota, discussed above. As discussed in that letter, the minimum warning level is determined by the fluid capacity of each compartment and not the capacity of the reservoir, unless the manufacturer recommends a higher safe level. In reference to your design, the compartments in question are compartment V[1] and compartment V[2]. Thus the warning level for compartment V[1] must not be less than 1/4 the capacity of compartment V[1]. Similarly, the warning level for compartment V[2] must not be less than 1/4 the capacity of compartment V[2]. This interpretation differs from your stated understanding, and ma y result in a lower minimum warning level. Since there may be safety advantages to higher warning levels, particularly where the capacity of individual compartments is small in relation to the capacity of the reservoir, you may wish to specify a higher warning level such as that indicated in your design.

Enclosure

ID: aiam4944

"Dear Mr. Willen: This responds to Honda's request for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays. You stated that Honda is developing a braking system for motorcycles that would offer full proportioning front and rear when utilizing either the front hand control, or the rear control. You asked whether such a system would be permitted by the standard, particularly in light of section S5.2.1. As discussed below, such a braking system would be permissible under Standard No. 123. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter. S5.2.1, Control location and operation, includes the following language: If a motorcycle is equipped with self-proportioning or antilock braking devices utilizing a single control for front and rear brakes, the control shall be located and operable in the same manner as a rear brake control. Table 1 of Standard No. 123 provides that a rear wheel brake control must be a right foot control and must depress to engage. (Table 1 also includes an additional option that is not necessary to address in this letter.) Since Honda's motorcycle would be equipped with a self-proportioning device utilizing a single control for front and rear brakes, it would be subject to this requirement. If Honda's 'rear foot control' is one that is operated by the right foot and must be depressed to be engaged, that control would satisfy S5.2.1. It is our interpretation that so long as one control meets the specified requirements for location and operation, additional controls serving the same purpose may be provided voluntarily by the manufacturer and need not meet those requirements. I note that this view is similar to a position taken in an April 26, 1983 interpretation letter to an addressee whose identity has been withheld for reasons of confidentiality. In that letter, the agency stated, in the context of discussing S5.2.1, that ' u se of ... a self-proportioning device does not preclude additional brake actuation devices.' I am, for your information, enclosing a copy of that letter. In the situation at issue, we would consider the front hand control on Honda's design to be an 'additional brake actuation device,' and therefore, not precluded by Standard No. 123. I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam0962

Dear Mr. Nishibori: This is in reply to your letter of December 14, 1972, concerning th acceptability, under S7.4 of Standard 208, of a time delay device in a belt interlock system.; As described in your letter, the delay device would permit an occupan who has operated the belt in the correct sequence to lift off the seat while buckled for a brief period *before* attempting to start the vehicle. Under S7.4 as presently constituted, this action by the occupant would result in the belt's being buckled before the seat is occupied. The occupant would therefore have to unbuckle the belt and rebuckle before starting the car. A time delay device, in short, would not be allowable.; We make no comment that this situation is desirable or undesirable, bu it is, however, required by the language of S7.4.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5073

"Dear Mr. Bohn: This responds to your inquiry about whether portabl construction equipment that you manufacture would have to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, particularly those standards related to brakes. You explained that your construction equipment is transported over public roads, but only between job sites and from the factory. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you further described your equipment as a portable conveyor belt that typically spends extended periods of time at a single construction site but is occasionally towed over the public roads to other construction sites. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. This agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The Act 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.' Whether the agency will consider a construction vehicle to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position 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. In instances where 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 for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than 'incidental.' Based on the above considerations, it appears that your portable conveyer belt is not a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, it would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This conclusion is based on your statements that your equipment spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your portable conveyor belt on the public roads to be incidental and not its primary purpose. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ";