ID: nht95-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 27, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Robert Charles Maltzahn, Esq.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/12/95 LETTER FROM ROBERT C. MAITZAHN TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10908)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Maltzahn:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements or any other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applies to your client's high pressure "waterjet cutting and clean ing equipment" manufactured as a mobile trailer. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter describe your client's product as "manufactured for use in the construction industry for hydrodemolition and cleaning and for industrial use." The letter states the equipment is mobile to facilitate towing from site to site, but is "not used primarily on the roadways and highways of the United States."

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the length of time the equipment is at a job site depends on the task. The equipment could be at a ship cleaning site for over a year, or at a hydrodemolition site for five days. You stated that the equipment very rarely stays at a job site for less than a week.

The FMVSS's apply only to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(6). That section defines "motor vehicle" as:

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

Whether the agency considers your trailer 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 m ove 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 contrast are 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 i s more than "incidental."

Based on your description, it appears that your client's equipment is not a motor vehicle. This is because the equipment appears to stay on job sites for extended periods of time (ranging from a week to over a year). Therefore, your client's equipment need not meet Standard No. 115, or any other FMVSS. I note that, if the agency were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10908

Robert Charles Maltzahn, Esq. 418 Northwest Midland Building 401 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401

Dear Mr. Maltzahn:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements or any other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applies to your client's high pressure "waterjet cutting and cleaning equipment" manufactured as a mobile trailer. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter describe your client's product as "manufactured for use in the construction industry for hydrodemolition and cleaning and for industrial use." The letter states the equipment is mobile to facilitate towing from site to site, but is "not used primarily on the roadways and highways of the United States."

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the length of time the equipment is at a job site depends on the task. The equipment could be at a ship cleaning site for over a year, or at a hydrodemolition site for five days. You stated that the equipment very rarely stays at a job site for less than a week.

The FMVSS's apply only to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. '30102(a)(6). That section defines "motor vehicle" as:

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

Whether the agency considers your trailer 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 contrast are 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 your description, it appears that your client's equipment is not a motor vehicle. This is because the equipment appears to stay on job sites for extended periods of time (ranging from a week to over a year). Therefore, your client's equipment need not meet Standard No. 115, or any other FMVSS. I note that, if the agency were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:6/27/95

ID: 7255

The Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr.
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-4202

Dear Mr. Duncan:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Clarence Lowe, an instructor for Campbell County Comprehensive High School, concerning the use of 15- passenger vans to transport school children. Campbell County has been informed by the Tennessee State Department of Education that vans cannot be used to transport children to school or school-related events. In light of school budget constraints, Mr. Lowe would like to use these vehicles for transporting students to off-campus vocational programs. Your letter also enclosed a letter from Ernest Farmer, Tennessee Director of Pupil Transportation, explaining why the State of Tennessee has instructed schools not to use vans to transport school children. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes.

Under NHTSA's regulations, vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes vans which carry 10 persons or less; vans which carry more than 10 persons are buses. Thus, the 15-passenger vans referred to by Mr. Lowe are classified as buses. Under the agency's definitions, a "school bus" is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events.

All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses.

Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles.

However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for Campbell County to use its 15-passenger vans for transportation of school children; however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Tennessee law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. Despite the additional cost of these vehicles, I encourage Campbell County to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Jerry Ralph Curry

ref:571.3 d:5/29/92

ID: nht92-6.25

DATE: May 29, 1992

FROM: Jerry Ralph Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TO: John J. Duncan, Jr. -- House of Representatives, Washington, D.C

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter from John J. Duncan, Jr. to Jerry R. Curry

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Clarence Lowe, an instructor for Campbell County Comprehensive High School, concerning the use of 15-passenger vans to transport school children. Campbell County has been informed by the Tennessee State Department of Education that vans cannot be used to transport children to school or school-related events. In light of school budget constraints, Mr. Lowe would like to use these vehicles for transporting students to off-campus vocational programs. Your letter also enclosed a letter from Ernest Farmer, Tennessee Director of Pupil Transportation, explaining why the State of Tennessee has instructed schools not to use vans to transport school children. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes.

Under NHTSA's regulations, vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes vans which carry 10 persons or less; vans which carry more than 10 persons are buses. Thus the 15-passenger vans referred to by Mr. Lowe are classified as buses. Under the agency's definitions, a "school bus" is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events.

All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses.

Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may USE a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles.

However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for Campbell County to use its 15-passenger vans for transportation of school children; however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Tennessee law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. Despite the additional cost of these vehicles, I encourage Campbell County to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht89-1.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/31/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: MELVIN KREWALL -- DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION SERVICE FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/17/88 FROM MELVIN KREWALL TO NHTSA, OCC 2697

TEXT: Dear Mr. Krewall:

Thank you for your letter asking two questions about how this agency's regulations apply to vehicles used as school buses. Before I answer your specific questions, it may be helpful to discuss some background information.

Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses. A "school bus" is defined at 49 CFR @ 571.3 as "a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related event s, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacture for sale a new school bus that does not comply with these safety standards. It is also a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school district may purchase or use a vehicle to transport school children even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. T his is so because the individual States have authority over the activities of a retail purchaser or user of a school bus. (Note, however, that a dealer who sold a vehicle other than a school bus to a school district with knowledge that it is intended to be used to transport school children would violate the Federal law.)

With this background, I will now address the specific questions raised in your letter. First, you asked whether a "transit coach-type vehicle" that was manufactured prior to April 1, 1977 could be used to transport students to and from school. In a sub sequent telephone conversation with Joan Tilghman of my staff, you explained that you used the term "transit coach-type vehicle" to mean a bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds. As explained above, Federal law does not

regulate the use of vehicles as school buses. If there are any limitations on the use of vehicles as school buses in your State, those limitations arise from the laws or regulations of the State of Oklahoma. NHTSA has repeatedly advised the States of o ur position that the safest way to transport students is in a vehicle that is certified as complying with Federal school bus regulations. We have encouraged States and school districts to consider this fact carefully when deciding what vehicle should be used to transport students to and from school and school-related events.

Your second question asked what must be done to bring a bus with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds "into compliance as a standard Type "D" school bus." In your telephone conversation with Ms. Tilgham, you explained that Oklahoma refers to school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds as "Type D" school buses. Please note that Federal school bus standards apply only to new school buses. Accordingly, there is no Federal requirement under NHTSA regulations that any person retrofit a used bus to make it comply with our standards for new school buses.

You may wish to know that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), a separate agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation, has proposed regulations to enhance the highway safety by regulating operations of "private motor carriers of passengers. " (54 Federal Register 7362, February 17, 1989, Private Carriage of Passengers.) FHWA is exploring whether it is appropriate to require retrofit of some buses owned by that category of operators to meet NHTSA vehicle safety standards. While the proposed rule does not address the operations of governmental entities, you may wish to consider the FHWA proposal or comment on it. I enclose a copy for your information, and direct your attention to the comment closing date of June 19, 1989.

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

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: 1765y

Mr. Melvin Krewall
Director, Transportation Section
Financial Services Division
Oklahoma State Department of Education
2500 North Lincoln Blvd
Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4599

Dear Mr. Krewall:

Thank you for your letter asking two questions about how this agency's regulations apply to vehicles used as school buses. Before I answer your specific questions, it may be helpful to discuss some background information.

Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses. A "school bus" is defined at 49 CFR /571.3 as "a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacture for sale a new school bus that does not comply with these safety standards. It is also a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school district may purchase or use a vehicle to transport school children even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. This is so because the individual States have authority over the activities of a retail purchaser or user of a school bus. (Note, however, that a dealer who sold a vehicle other than a school bus to a school district with knowledge that it is intended to be used to transport school children would violate the Federal law.)

With this background, I will now address the specific questions raised in your letter. First, you asked whether a "transit coach-type vehicle" that was manufactured prior to April 1, 1977 could be used to transport students to and from school. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Joan Tilghman of my staff, you explained that you used the term "transit coach-type vehicle" to mean a bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds. As explained above, Federal law does not regulate the use of vehicles as school buses. If there are any limitations on the use of vehicles as school buses in your State, those limitations arise from the laws or regulations of the State of Oklahoma. NHTSA has repeatedly advised the States of our position that the safest way to transport students is in a vehicle that is certified as complying with Federal school bus regulations. We have encouraged States and school districts to consider this fact carefully when deciding what vehicles should be used to transport students to and from school and school-related events.

Your second question asked what must be done to bring a bus with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds "into compliance as a standard Type "D" school bus." In your telephone conversation with Ms. Tilghman, you explained that Oklahoma refers to school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds as "Type D" school buses. Please note that Federal school bus standards apply only to new school buses. Accordingly, there is no Federal requirement under NHTSA regulations that any person retrofit a used bus to make it comply with our standards for new school buses.

You may wish to know that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), a separate agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation, has proposed regulations to enhance highway safety by regulating operations of "private motor carriers of passengers." (54 Federal Register 7362, February 17, 1989, Private Carriage of Passengers.) FHWA is exploring whether it is appropriate to require retrofit of some buses owned by that category of operators to meet NHTSA vehicle safety standards. While the proposed rule does not address the operations of governmental entities, you may wish to consider the FHWA proposal or comment on it. I enclose a copy for your information, and direct your attention to the comment closing date of June 19, 1989.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel /ref:571#VSA d:3/3l/89

ID: nht73-4.17

DATE: 05/03/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Automotive Service Industry Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 26, 1973, to Mr. George Shifflett of my staff, enclosing a letter from Mr. I. Warren Simpson of Standard Parts Corporation. Mr. Simpson's questions, as amplified in a phone conversation we had with him following your suggestion, are restated below, and followed by our responses.

1. When "glyder kits" are installed, is the installer considered to be a manufacturer and therefore responsible for certification? (We understand "glyder kits" to mean a cab with chassis, less power train and rear axle.)

Whether a vehicle must be certified depends upon whether it is a "completed vehicle", as that term is defined in 49 CFR @ 568.3 (Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages), copy enclosed. If the installation of a glyder kit produces a 'completed vehicle", the installer must certify the vehicle, as specified in 49 CFR Parts 567, 568, as conforming to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

In cases involving the refurbishing of a used chassis, the NHTSA considers the refurbished vehicle to be a used vehicle, for which no certification is necessary. However, the implication from your letter is that a glyder kit installation involves a new chassis (only the rear axle and power train are used) and consequently the completed vehicle will be a new vehicle which must be certified.

There is also the possibility that a glyder kit, when installed, will be an "incomplete vehicle" (also defined in 49 CFR 568.3). An incomplete vehicle is not certified. Rather, its manufacturer prepares, and ships with it pursuant to Part 568, a document containing information on steps that the final-stage manufacturer must take in order to bring the vehicle, as completed, into conformity with applicable Federal standards.

2. Are we required to know the first purchaser for purposes other than resale (users) of the vehicle when we complete the vehicle for a dealer?

Section 113(f) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1402 (f)) requires each manufacturer of motor vehicles to maintain records of the names and addresses of the first purchaser (other than a dealer and distributor) of motor vehicles produced by that manufacturer. In completing a vehicle for a dealer, you are the final-stage manufacturer of the vehicle, and are responsible for maintaining the names and addresses of first purchasers. The information can be obtained from the dealers for whom you complete vehicles.

3. If the vehicles are involved in a "defect notification" campaign are we, as final-stage manufacturer (we install fifth wheels), required to participate?

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer of motor vehicles is responsible for notifying owners of vehicles that he manufacturers. Usually, for multi-stage vehicles, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer will issue notification for defects covering those vehicle parts or components which he assembled or manufactured. Final stage manufacturers, like yourself, would do likewise. Under the Defect Notification regulations (49 CFR Part 577), if any one manufacturer who participates in the manufacture of a multi-stage vehicle conducts a notification campaign, the other manufacturers will not be required to do so. You may, however, be called upon to furnish to the manufacturer conducting the campaign the names and addresses of purchasers for vehicles you have completed.

4. "How can a distributor safety attach a fifth wheel? (Any frame failure is our liability since the OEM is very specific about neither, welding, drilling, or cutting the frame.)"

This agency is not in a position to give advice in this regard. The problem should be worked out between the incomplete and final-stage manufacturer.

We are enclosing the following pertinent publications: 1. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 2. Part 567, "Certification", and Part 568, "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages." 3. Part 573, "Defect Reports." 4. Part 577, "Defect Notification."

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

ENCLS.

ID: 08-007826 Testlabs May 15 09

ID: nht95-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 12, 1995

FROM: Jeffrey Echt -- President, Saline Electronics, Inc.

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: In Re: Saline Electronics

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/2/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO JEFFREY ECHT (REDBOOK(4)); STD. 108 AND 30122 (6)

TEXT: Saline Electronics, Inc., has developed and applied for a United States patent on a new type of automotive stop lamp system. During normal braking, this new system permits the stop lamps, which are original equipment, to operate in a steady burning mode . However, during and after episodes of high, braking-induced deceleration, the system flashes the stop lamps it controls on and off. The flashing stop lamps could be the original equipment stop lamps required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ( FMVSS) No. 108 (49CFR571.108), or one or more lamps in addition to those required by FMVSS No. 108.

The purpose of this letter is to obtain clarification of the position of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with respect to our new system. We realize that individual states may regulate such devices, causing non-Federal limitati ons upon its use.

Apparently, deceleration warning systems, such as ours, are not specifically mentioned in FMVSS No. 108. Yet, in an interpretative letter, dated July 30, 1993, to the Virginia Transportation Research Council, the NHTSA stated:

Virginia could permit the use of a red or amber original equipment deceleration warning system operating in a steady burning mode through either original equipment lamps or supplementary ones.

In the same interpretative letter, you also indicated that "unless otherwise provided by Section 5.5.10 [of FMVSS 108], all original motor vehicle lighting equipment, whether or not required by Standard No. 108, must be steady burning in use."

These interpretations suggest room for experimentation by governmental agencies with our new system, and also the possibility of aftermarket products designed for installation by the individual motor vehicle owners. Hence, we seek your opinion on the fo llowing questions, based solely upon Federal law:

1. May states specifically permit (by statute or regulation) the use of deceleration warning systems which are neither original equipment nor replacements for original equipment? For example, may states specifically permit the use of an aftermarket dec eleration warning system which a) permits all original equipment stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108 to operate in a normal steady burning mode, and b) flashes one aftermarket center-mounted stop lamp or two side-mounted stop lamps, on vehicles not requ ired to be so equipped?

2. In the absence of state regulation of flashing deceleration warning systems, is it lawful for individuals, states or municipalities to install such systems on their vehicles, provided they do not alter the steady burning operation of the original equ ipment stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108? For example, may mass transist districts operate busses with flashing deceleration warning lamps, if the systems are installed by their own mechanics and the steady burning operation of the original equipment stop lamps is not altered? May individuals install such equipment on their own vehicles?

3. May individuals, states or municipalities, who are not manufacturers, distributors or motor vehicle repairs businesses, lawfully install flashing deceleration warning systems which would prevent the original equipment stop lamps from steadily burning during and after episodes of high, braking-induced deceleration? For example, may a mass transit district install a deceleration warning system which would flash some or all of the original equipment stop lamps during and after rapid deceleration due t o hard braking, if the system were installed by its own mechanics?

We know that the NHTSA receives many requests for interpretation and petitions for rule making with regard to vehicle lighting. We appreciate your consideration of our request and thank you for your prompt action. Saline Electronics, Inc., has no objec tion to this letter and your response becoming a part of the public record.

ID: 14285.mls

Mr. Ken Bratlie
President
Columbia Corporation
5775 NW Wagon Way
Hillsboro, OR 97124-8531

Dear Mr. Bratlie:

This responds to your inquiry about whether two types of "trailer tippers" (a "Woods Products Trailer Tipper" and a "Landfill Trailer Tipper") are motor vehicles that would have to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A trailer tipper is used to empty the contents from a semitrailer onto the ground by elevating (tipping) one end of the trailer and pouring the content out the other end. You state that each trailer tipper stays at an off-road work site, such as a mill or a landfill, the majority of its life and is infrequently transported over public roads between job sites.

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

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

Whether the agency considers your trailer tippers to be motor vehicles depends on their 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 contrast are 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, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the available information, it appears that your trailer tippers are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the statutory definition. This conclusion is based on your statements in your letter that the trailer tippers typically spend extended periods of time at a single site and only use the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of the trailer tippers on the public roads to be incidental and not their primary purpose. Since your trailer tippers are not motor vehicles, they would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Accordingly, the trailer tippers would not be required to be equipped with antilock brake systems.

If NHTSA were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer tippers used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. If the agency were to determine that your trailer tippers are motor vehicles, then they would have to comply with the applicable Standards, including Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which addresses conspicuity, Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, if the trailer tipper were a motor vehicle, while it would not be required to be equipped with brakes, if it is equipped with hydraulic brakes, then you would need to use brake hoses and brake fluids that comply with Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, and Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. Please note that trailers equipped with air brakes are required to comply with Standard No. 106 and Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

In addition, if your trailers were motor vehicles, you, as a motor vehicle manufacturer, would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. This certification procedure is set out in 49 CFR Part 567.

Please note that since a State may require an off-road vehicle to be registered, you may wish to contact the States in which your trailer tippers are used about any such requirements.

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,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d:5/6/97