ID: nht93-3.42

DATE: May 12, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Bryan D. Patton -- International Automobile Enterprises, Inc., ERA Replica Automobile

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-16-92 from Bryan D. Patton to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 8200)

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting information on Federal regulations for "tubing" you use for hydraulic brake lines in replica cars. I apologize for the delay in responding. We understand that you informed Mr. John Messera of NHTSA's Enforcement Office by telephone that the tubing is steel tubing.

The answer to your inquiry is that there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that applies to metal brake tubing. FMVSS No. 106, "Brake Hoses" applies to new motor vehicles and to "brake hoses" (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. "Brake hose" is defined in S4 of the standard as "a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes." NHTSA's longstanding position is that the term "flexible" used in the definition excludes steel tubing. (SEE, E.G., NHTSA's response to petitions for reconsideration, 39 FR 7425, February 26, 1974.) Thus, based on the information you provided by telephone, Standard No. 106 does not appear to apply to the tubing you use in manufacturing your replica cars.

You should be aware, however, that under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in SS 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your steel tubing contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

You also ask whether "(t)he SAE standard would be used to determine such suitability in the absence of a specific federal code or regulation." Since there is no FMVSS that applies to your tubing, under federal law you are only responsible under the Safety Act for ensuring that your product is free from safety-related defects. As to your potential liability under State law, we suggest that you consult a private attorney for questions about this matter. A private attorney would also be able to answer your query as to whether, under State law, an SAE standard could be used to determine the suitability of your product.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: Strauser_ltr

Mr. Dan Strauser
Manager--Research and Development
Federal Signal Corporation
1300 West Bartlett Road
Elgin, IL 60120-7529





Dear Mr. Strauser:

This is in reply to your letter asking how various models of Ravo street sweepers would be treated under our current regulations and interpretations. Specifically, you have inquired about the Ravo 3-series, 4-series, and 5-series models, which are more fully described in the brochures you enclosed with your letter.

From the brochures, it is apparent that these Ravo street sweepers are 4-wheeled vehicles that vary considerably in terms of maximum speed capacity. The Ravo 3-series street sweeper is available in two speed versions: one with a maximum speed capacity of 32 kilometers per hour (km/h) (20 mph) and one with a maximum speed capacity of 40 km/h (25 mph). The Ravo 4-series (Ravo 4000) street sweeper appears to be available in only one speed version with a maximum speed capacity of 30 km/h (19 mph). The Ravo 5-series street sweeper is available in three speed versions: one with a maximum speed capacity of 32 km/h (20 mph), one with a maximum speed capacity of 40 km/h (25 mph), and one with a maximum speed capacity of 62 km/h (39 mph).

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates "motor vehicles." A "motor vehicle" is defined in part as one which is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." 49 U.S.C. 30102(6). Vehicles that operate on the public streets, roads, and highways, as one of their primary uses ("on-road vehicles"), are generally subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). This agency has used various tests for determining whether an on-road vehicle is a motor vehicle. For example, NHTSA has consistently determined that on-road vehicles with a maximum speed capacity greater than 32 km/h (20 mph) are motor vehicles and therefore subject to the FMVSS. With regard to certain low-speed on-road vehicles, we have, in past interpretations, concluded

that those with a maximum speed capacity of 32 km/h (20 mph) or less and an abnormal configuration that distinguished them from the traffic flow were not subject to the FMVSS. During the 1997 low-speed vehicle rulemaking ⁽¹⁾ and in at least one subsequently-issued interpretation, ⁽²⁾ however, this agency announced its intention to abandon "abnormal configuration" as a test for future interpretations.

It is against this backdrop that we consider whether the Ravo street sweepers about which you inquire are subject to the FMVSS. This agency has consistently stated, over the years, that street sweepers are "motor vehicles" because they are manufactured for the purpose of cleaning city streets and spend their entire functional life on public streets. The next question to be addressed, therefore, is whether they are subject to the FMVSS and, if they are, how they are classified for compliance purposes.

Consistent with past interpretations, we consider the Ravo street sweepers with a maximum speed capacity greater than 32 km/h (20 mph) to be subject to the FMVSS. This conclusion is based on long-standing agency policy subjecting all on-road vehicles with a maximum speed capacity greater than 32 km/h (20 mph) to the FMVSS. As to the proper classification of these vehicles, we consider them to be "trucks" because they are four-wheeled vehicles designed primarily for the transportation of street sweeper brushes, which we have long considered to be "special purpose equipment." (A "truck" is defined as a "motor vehicle . . . designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." See 49 CFR Part 571.3(b).)

With respect to the Ravo street sweepers with a maximum speed capacity of 32 km/h (20 mph) or less, we are currently in the process of considering what tests should be applied in determining whether on-road vehicles are motor vehicles. In the meantime, since we have previously concluded that street sweepers with a maximum speed capability of 32 km/h (20 mph) or less are not motor vehicles and therefore not subject to the FMVSS under the old line of interpretations, we are re-affirming that conclusion. We will maintain that position unless, and until, the agency announces a change in policy.

If you have any questions, you may contact Robert Knop of this Office at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.9/5/01





---

1. ¹ See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 62 FR 1077 (January 8, 1997).

2. ² See November 20, 1997, letter to Mr. Gary Starr of ZAP Electric Bikes.

ID: nht74-2.33

DATE: 08/26/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 2, 1974, asking for the appropriate method for bending plastic material over the mandrel as specified in Test No. 22 of ANS Z26.1-1966, which is incorporated into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 CFR 571.205). You indicate that the test procedure does not specify either the bending force, or whether mechanical means for bending are allowed.

Paragraph 5.22.2 of Test 22 states, in part, as follows:

After conditioning, the test specimens shall be immediately bent over a mandrel so that either the entire length of the specimen shall conform to the surface of the mandrel or that it be bent 130 degrees over the mandrel, with the longitudinal axis of the specimen normal to the axis of the mandrel. (emphasis added)

As the procedure does not specify the bending force, or the method in which it is to be applied, the NHTSA would consider as appropriate any force or method of application that would permit the plastic to be bent immediately after conditioning. There is nothing to prohibit the use of hand or mechanical pressure, but it must be applied in such a way that an immediate bending takes place.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY

INCORPORATED

PLASTICS DEPARTMENT

August 2, 1974

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

We manufacture a transparent acrylic safety glazing material, Lucite (register) AR abrasion-resistant sheet. Many of our markets are in the transportation industry, including public buses, people movers, and recreational vehicles. Safety glazing materials must conform to ANSI Z26.1-1966 code for glazing motor vehicles operated on land highways, as required by FMVSS #205. The ANSI Z26.1-1966 code, Item 6, flexible Plastics category, is defined in part by Test No. 22. This test requires that a sample of the plastic be "bent over a mandrel so that either the entire length of the specimen shall conform to the surface of the mandrel or that it be bent 180 degrees over the mandrel." (The diameter of the mandrel being 80 times the sample thickness.) The stated purpose of the test is to determine "satisfactory flexibility".

No mention is made of the method or technique used in forcing the plastic to conform to the mandrel. The test does not indicate whether mechanical means are allowed; and, if so, what force. It is my understanding that some independent testing laboratories use hand pressure.

Would you please indicate to me what the NHTSA or DOT position is on this test and the test method to be used

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Paul D. Carfagna -- Technical Representative, Lucite (register) AR Marketing

ID: 2914yy

Mr. Rick Weisbrod
Vice President Marketing
Independent Mobility Systems, Inc.
4100 West Piedras Street
Farmington, New Mexico 87401

Dear Mr. Weisbrod:

This responds to your letter of March 5, 1991 concerning the requirements of Standard No. 301. According to your letter and information provided in a telephone conversation with John Rigby of this office on March 7, 1991, your company uses the Chrysler mini-van as a base vehicle for modification for use by drivers or passengers in wheelchairs. This modification is normally performed before the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer. However, the modification is sometimes performed after sale of the vehicle to a consumer. During the modification, the position of the fuel tank is altered by moving it behind the rear axle, the fuel filler tube is modified to reach the new location, and new structure is added to the rear of the vehicle. To ensure compliance with Standard No. 301, your company had front, rear, and side impact tests performed on a modified vehicle. You believe that this crash testing is appropriate, but have been told by "various entities" that no such testing is required. Below I will explain the requirements applicable (1) when your company modifies a vehicle before the first sale to a consumer and (2) when your company modifies a vehicle after its sale to a consumer.

As you know, a manufacturer of new motor vehicles must certify that its vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Under the NHTSA regulation on certification (49 CFR Part 567), a person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer is considered an "alterer," if the modifications involve more than the addition, substitution, or removal of "readily attachable" components. An alterer is required to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). When your company modifies a vehicle by relocating the fuel tank and making the other changes listed above before first sale to a consumer, it would be considered an alterer. Your company, therefore, would have to certify that every vehicle it alters complies with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration, including Standard No. 301.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) does not expressly require alterers and manufacturers to conduct testing in accordance with the procedures set forth in the safety standards. Instead, the Safety Act requires alterers and manufacturers to exercise "due care" in certifying that a vehicle complies with all safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). It is up to the alterer or manufacturer, in the first instance, to determine how he or she will establish that due care was exercised in making the certification. NHTSA itself must precisely follow the crash test procedures in Standard No. 301 when the agency conducts its compliance testing. Manufacturers or alterers may establish due care by conducting crash testing in accordance with the procedures set forth in Standard No. 301. Alternatively, manufacturers or alterers may use other procedures for assuring themselves that their vehicle complies with Standard No. 301, such as computer simulations or engineering analyses. Of course, the agency recognizes that conducting crash tests in accordance with the procedures in Standard No. 301 may be the simplest and most reliable way for an alterer to assure itself that the altered vehicles comply with the standard.

When your company modifies a vehicle after that vehicle has been sold to a consumer, it would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section 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, your company (or any other manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) making the modifications you described in your letter must ensure that those modifications do not "render inoperative" the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard, including Standard No. 301. Again, the crash testing described in your letter would be a very effective way of ensuring that the modifications do not "render inoperative" compliance with Standard No. 301.

While your letter only concerned compliance with Standard No. 301, I would note that the modifications you discussed may affect compliance with other safety standards. Other safety standards that could be affected by the modifications include (1) Standard No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement, (2) Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (3) Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting, and (4) Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion.

I hope this information is useful to you. I also would like to express my appreciation for your company's interest in and commitment to motor vehicle safety. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref:301 d:4/l/9l

ID: nht87-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/17/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: C.M. METHA -- AUTOLITE[INDIA] LIMITED

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/23/87 FROM C.M. MEHTA TO NHTSA RE DOT APPROVAL ON HEADLAMPS, DRIVING LAMPS ETC FOR MARKETING IN USA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mehta:

This is in reply to your letter of February 23, 1987, to the Department of Transportation. You mentioned an earlier letter dated January 9, 1987, enclosing a copy of your product catalogue, but I regret to say that this Office has not received it.

As a producer of motor vehicle lighting equipment, you have asked for answers to the following questions:

"1. Details of DOT/SAE approval required in marketing our Headlamp Units 7", 5 3/4" (Round) and Rectangular small and large".

In the United States no "approval" is required to import the headlamps that you mention. However, the manufacturer must assure itself that the headlamps comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Dev ices, and Associated Equipment (essentially those of the SAE for round and rectangular sealed beam headlamps), and certify each one as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This certification is a DOT symbol on the headlamp lens .

"2. Can we market those lamps as referred in Para. No. 1 fitted with 9004, 9005 and 9006 Bulbs. If there is any specifications/technical details available with you, please send us a copy."

The headlamps discussed in paragraph 1 are sizes traditionally associated with sealed beam headlamps, rather than with replaceable bulbs such as the DOT HB1 (9004), HB3 (9005), and HB4 (9006). However, it is permissible to produce headlamps in these siz es, which incorporate replaceable light sources that are specified by Standard No. 108. However, such headlamps must meet all the requirements of the standard applicable to replaceable bulb headlamps. I enclose a copy of Standard No. 108 for your infor mation.

"3. We understand that the use 9004, 9005, 9006 bulbs are permitted on Headlamps with Lens and Reflectors made of Plastic. Kindly advise, if we can use these Reflector made of metal?"

Yes, a headlamp may have a reflector of either plastic or metal.

"4. Details of approval required for High Beam Driving Lamps to be used for off-road vehicles."

"5. The details of specifications for Driving Lamps to be used on Cars, Trucks, etc."

Standard No. 108 does not require vehicles to be equipped with driving lamps and it establishes no requirements for them. If there are any specifications or approvals required, they are those of the individual States in which these lamps would be sold a nd used. For further information on State requirements you should write: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

It is the position of this Department that any headlamp unit which is capable of replacing a passenger car headlamp must meet the applicable requirements of Standard No. 108, even if it may also be used on off-road vehicles.

You have also asked for copies of "SAE F-80 Front Fog Lamps" and SAE-J-79 Motor Cycle Headlamps". We are not familiar with these materials and advise you to write: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, Pa. 15096. As for "Specification for Driving Lamps Using H3 Bulb", this appears to be a European specification unknown to us, as the H3 bulb is one that is not widely used in the United States.

The following is a listing of those requirements that must be completed before shipments begin. You must:

1. Appoint an agent for service of process in accordance with Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 551 (49 CFR 551).

2. Provide information as specified in 49 CFR 566, "Manufacturer Identification."

If you determine in good faith that any lamp manufactured by you does not conform with Standard No. 108 or contains a safety-related defect, section 151 (15 USC 1411) of the Act requires that you furnish notification to the Secretary and to owners in acc ordance with section 153 (15 USC 1413) and to remedy without cost the failure to conform or defect in accordance with 154 (15 USC 1414). Details are contained in 49 CFR 573, 576 and 579.

We are enclosing the following pertinent publications:

1. The Act 2. 19 CFR 12.80, "Regulations for Motor Vehicle "Importation" 3. 49 CFR 551, "Procedural Rules" 4. 49 CFR 573, "Defect and Noncompliance Reports" 5. 49 CFR 576, "Record Retention" 6. 49 CFR 579, "Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility" 7. Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment

If we may be of further assistance, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ID: nht95-6.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 6, 1995

FROM: Earl Eisnhart -- Vice President, National Private Truck Council; Larry W. Strawhorn -- Vice President - Engineering, American Trucking Associations

TO: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LARRY W. STRAWHORN (A43; STD. 121)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

This letter is a request for an interpretation of Section 5.2.3.3, Antilock Malfunction Indicator, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 121, Air Brake Systems, which requires an antilock malfunction indicator lamp to be mounted on trailers during an eight year transition period. This section reads (second sentence emphasized):

"S5.2.3.3 Antilock Malfunction Indicator. Each trailer (including trailer converter dolly) manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 and before March 1, 2006 shall be equipped with a lamp indicating a malfunction of a trailer's antilock brake system. Such a lamp shall remain activated as long as the malfunction exists whenever power is supplied to the antilock brake system. The display shall be visible within the driver's forward field of view through the rearview mirror(s), and shall be visible once the malfunction is present and power is provided to the system."

Since this requirement does not specify a specific "activation pattern", we interpret that the agency expects the industry itself to standardize on an activation pattern. This is consistent with the agency's position in Section 5.1.6.3, Antilock Power Circuit for Towed Vehicles, where NHTSA is relying on the industry to determine the most effective way to provide separate power to trailer antilock systems.

Section 5.1.6.2, Antilock Malfunction Circuit and Signal, which requires in-cab mounted malfunction lamps for towing and towed vehicle(s) antilock systems does not specify an actuation pattern for malfunction lamps on powered vehicles either. However, the section in the rule preamble which discusses the in-cab malfunction lamp on powered vehicles, Activation Protocol for Malfunction Indicators (page 13246 Federal Register/Vol. 60, No. 47), makes it clear that NHTSA wants the activation pattern for truck/tractor in-cab lamps to be such that "upon a failure, the lamp would activate and provide a continuous yellow signal" and would "have a continuously burning lamp in response to a malfunction." This preamble section does not discuss trailer mounted malfunction lamps.

The special SAE ABS task force, which was established last April to develop, or modify, standards and recommended practices in areas of vehicle design and performance affected by the new antilock requirements of FMVSS 121, has developed a recommendation for trailer mounted malfunction lamps which most effectively meets the needs for the lamp.

Among the task force's recommendations is one that the lamp activation pattern should be such that the lamp bulb be ON when the antilock system is working properly and OFF when a malfunction exists, the antilock system is not getting electrical power, or the lamp bulb is burnt out.

Adoption of this trailer malfunction lamp activation pattern for trailers during the eight year transition period provides significant safety advantages including:

(1) The lamp activation pattern becomes a fail safe pattern, i.e., it will signal an inoperative antilock system even when the system is not receiving electrical power or the lamp bulb is burnt out. A lamp system which activates by turning the lamp ON when there is a malfunction will not warn of antilock failures under these conditions.

(2) The recommended activation pattern fits in with pre-trip walk-around and other trailer inspections. In walk-around inspections, where drivers turn ON all the lamps including the stop lamps (brakes applied through use of the trailer hand valve, trailer air supply valve, stick prop, etc.) and then walk around the vehicle to detect if any lamps (this would include the antilock lamp) are not burning. This inspection is simpler and more reliable if the driver doesn't have to go through a lamp check procedure first. The same is also true when mechanics and officials inspect the trailer.

We respectively request that you advise us as soon as possible Whether our interpretation of Section 5.2.3.3, i.e., does not require a specific lamp activation pattern, is correct. New tractors must start complying with the new antilock system requirements in 18 months. In order for tractor manufacturers to efficiently design their vehicles to accommodate trailer antilock system malfunction signals, they need to know the standard protocol for these signals soon. In order for antilock manufacturers to standardize the protocol, they need to know if our interpretation is correct.

Please contact us if there is a need for further information.

ID: nht95-4.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 6, 1995

FROM: Earl Eisnhart -- Vice President, National Private Truck Council; Larry W. Strawhorn -- Vice President - Engineering, American Trucking Associations

TO: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LARRY W. STRAWHORN (A43; STD. 121)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

This letter is a request for an interpretation of Section 5.2.3.3, Antilock Malfunction Indicator, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 121, Air Brake Systems, which requires an antilock malfunction indicator lamp to be mounted on trailers du ring an eight year transition period. This section reads (second sentence emphasized):

"S5.2.3.3 Antilock Malfunction Indicator. Each trailer (including trailer converter dolly) manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 and before March 1, 2006 shall be equipped with a lamp indicating a malfunction of a trailer's antilock brake system. Such a lamp shall remain activated as long as the malfunction exists whenever power is supplied to the antilock brake system. The display shall be visible within the driver's forward field of view through the rearview mirror(s), and shall be visible once th e malfunction is present and power is provided to the system."

Since this requirement does not specify a specific "activation pattern", we interpret that the agency expects the industry itself to standardize on an activation pattern. This is consistent with the agency's position in Section 5.1.6.3, Antilock Power C ircuit for Towed Vehicles, where NHTSA is relying on the industry to determine the most effective way to provide separate power to trailer antilock systems.

Section 5.1.6.2, Antilock Malfunction Circuit and Signal, which requires in-cab mounted malfunction lamps for towing and towed vehicle(s) antilock systems does not specify an actuation pattern for malfunction lamps on powered vehicles either. However, t he section in the rule preamble which discusses the in-cab malfunction lamp on powered vehicles, Activation Protocol for Malfunction Indicators (page 13246 Federal Register/Vol. 60, No. 47), makes it clear that NHTSA wants the activation pattern for truc k/tractor in-cab lamps to be such that "upon a failure, the lamp would activate and provide a continuous yellow signal" and would "have a continuously burning lamp in response to a malfunction." This preamble section does not discuss trailer mounted malf unction lamps.

The special SAE ABS task force, which was established last April to develop, or modify, standards and recommended practices in areas of vehicle design and performance affected by the new antilock requirements of FMVSS 121, has developed a recommendation for trailer mounted malfunction lamps which most effectively meets the needs for the lamp.

Among the task force's recommendations is one that the lamp activation pattern should be such that the lamp bulb be ON when the antilock system is working properly and OFF when a malfunction exists, the antilock system is not getting electrical power, or the lamp bulb is burnt out.

Adoption of this trailer malfunction lamp activation pattern for trailers during the eight year transition period provides significant safety advantages including:

(1) The lamp activation pattern becomes a fail safe pattern, i.e., it will signal an inoperative antilock system even when the system is not receiving electrical power or the lamp bulb is burnt out. A lamp system which activates by turning the lamp ON w hen there is a malfunction will not warn of antilock failures under these conditions.

(2) The recommended activation pattern fits in with pre-trip walk-around and other trailer inspections. In walk-around inspections, where drivers turn ON all the lamps including the stop lamps (brakes applied through use of the trailer hand valve, trail er air supply valve, stick prop, etc.) and then walk around the vehicle to detect if any lamps (this would include the antilock lamp) are not burning. This inspection is simpler and more reliable if the driver doesn't have to go through a lamp check pro cedure first. The same is also true when mechanics and officials inspect the trailer.

We respectively request that you advise us as soon as possible Whether our interpretation of Section 5.2.3.3, i.e., does not require a specific lamp activation pattern, is correct. New tractors must start complying with the new antilock system requiremen ts in 18 months. In order for tractor manufacturers to efficiently design their vehicles to accommodate trailer antilock system malfunction signals, they need to know the standard protocol for these signals soon. In order for antilock manufacturers to standardize the protocol, they need to know if our interpretation is correct.

Please contact us if there is a need for further information.

ID: 05-006195drn

Ms. Sherra C. Jarrells
191 Montrose Drive
Mooresville, NC 28115




Dear Ms. Jarrells:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of whether your proposed product, a "large Kayak with retractable gear legs for the purposes of not needing a trailer to transport the boat" is a "motor vehicle." We have also received via e-mail, photographs of the product in production. This letter confirms that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers your product to be a "motor vehicle," specifically a trailer. You also asked several questions relating to requirements for trailer manufacturers, which are answered below.

By way of background information, NHTSA administers the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) at 49 CFR Part 571 are promulgated.

You wish to know whether your product is a "trailer", and thus, a "motor vehicle".NHTSAs statute at 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power 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 kayak with axles to be a "motor vehicle" depends on its use. It is the agencys 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. (Such equipment is the subject of the October 20, 2003, letter to Mr. Michael E. Ogle of Schiller International Corp. that you provided to us.) 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 our statute, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental".

Based on the information you have provided, it is our opinion that your product is a motor vehicle, specifically a trailer. You indicated that the purpose of the retractable gear legs/wheel assemblies is so that a trailer is not needed to transport the boat, and that the product is intended for highway use. Given the nature of the product, we believe that owners would routinely tow it behind their vehicles to take it to various recreational areas. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your product on the public roads to be a primary purpose, and not incidental. Since your product is a motor vehicle, it would be subject to the FMVSSs. Your product would be considered a trailer, defined in NHTSAs regulations at 49 CFR Part 571.3 as:

[A] motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.

I am enclosing an information package, "Requirements for Trailer Manufacturers" issued by NHTSAs Enforcement Office, which explains in some detail NHTSA regulations that apply to the manufacture of trailers. Since the agency has determined that your product is a motor vehicle, the product must comply with applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which addresses conspicuity, FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, and FMVSS 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, while your vehicle is not 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 FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses, and FMVSS No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. Please note that trailers equipped with air brakes are required to comply with FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

In addition, as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you 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 FMVSSs. The certification procedure is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

You also ask how to ensure that your trailer complies with the laws of each of the fifty States. We regret that we cannot provide this type of information. You may wish to contact the various States and/or a private attorney concerning this question.

Finally, because NHTSA has no statutory authority to regulate "boats," I am unable to provide an opinion whether your product is also a "boat".

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:VSA
d.9/15/05

ID: 77-4.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Trade Group of Ohio, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 14, 1977, to Don Williamson of our Ohio regional office.

You enclosed information on an automatic warning flasher lamp that is designed for installation on the parcel shelf inside the rear window of automobiles. You asked whether such a device would be legal on U.S. cars or U.S. highways, and "what steps might be required to obtain an endorsement for the generic device from the N.H.T.S.A."

The unit appears to be designed for sale as a motor vehicle accessory in the aftermarket. There are no Federal prohibitions against the sale of the warning device or its installation in motor vehicles. Whether it is legal to use such a device however is a question to be answered under the laws of the jurisdiction where the motor vehicle in which it is installed is registered and/or operated.

The NHTSA does not issue approvals or endorsements of propriety safety devices.

Yours Truly,

INTERNATIONAL TRADE GROUP OF OHIO, INC.

October 14, 1977

Don Williamson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

At the suggestion of John Pichler of the Ohio Highway Safety Department I am writing to you for some assistance.

Now, before reading further, look at the two enclosures with this letter. I came across the unit at the recent IAA show in Frankfurt, Germany. It is an emergency warning light for vehicles. It turns on automatically under impact or it can be switched on in case of emergency from a dash-mounted switch.

I am interested in some expert advice in two areas.

1. Would such a device be considered legal on U.S. cars on U.S. highways? While the current color is amber, it can be easily made any color that would be legal.

2. What steps might be required to obtain an endorsement for the generic device from the N.H.T.S.A.?

If necessary I can certainly come to Chicago to show you a unit and discuss its operation and use in more detail.

James E. Reider President

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics Omitted)

A B L THE AMBER WARNING LIGHT

ABL - everyone's amber warning

ABL - the automatic warning flasher has a dual safety function:

1. ABL switches on automatically without any human intervention immediately on a traffic accident.

2. You can switch the ABL on by hand in hazardous situations and to secure a stationary vehicle.

The ABL therefore secures both life and vehicle.

In case of an accident, this panoramic amber flasher will warn anything from 5 to 10 cars following. By fitting the light to the rear right in front of the rear window, i.e. inside the car, you protect your ABL warning system against dirt and guarantee it the most effective position for rapid and effective visibility in an emergency. In particular, these advantages of the ABL supplement the statutory flasher system.

A further advantage is that you can switch the ABL on immediately if you break-down, run out of petrol or have to stop for other reasons and need not first leave the car to fetch a warning triangle or a lamp often equipped with empty batteries - from the boot. A further safety factor in your life - just think of the hazardous conditions on the motorway.

The ABL is connected up to the car battery (12 volts). Home fitting is no problem to the expert handy man.

The ABL has been registered by the Federal Road Traffic Office at Flensburg and granted type certificate 8502.

Please note:

the ABL secures your life and vehicle!

KONIG Instrument Engineering

ID: nht71-4.25

DATE: 10/19/71

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

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 FOR VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH SNOW PLOWS

I appreciate your letter of September 8 and the concern you express about the effectiveness of the Federal motor vehicle safety program.

You have asked for a clarification of the opinion in my letter of August 16 that compliance of a vehicle with the Federal lighting standard, No. 108, would be based upon its "as-sold condition", where the vehicle is equipped with a hoist or mounting bracket and the snow plow, etc., is not sold with the vehicle. This opinion means that compliance with Standard No. 108 is determined without the plow attached even though, to use your hypothetical situation, the purchaser may be invited by the dealer to come back tomorrow and pick up your snow plow so we won't have to put the lights on.

The legal responsibility of a dealer under section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 is limited to ensuring that the vehicle complies at the time of sale. Section 108(b)(1) of the Act terminates compliance responsibility "after the first purchase of [the vehicle] in good faith for purposes other than resale." For this legal reason there is no violation of the Act if, after sale of the vehicle, the purchaser adds equipment (as in the mounting of a snow plow) or removes equipment (e.g., seat belts, head restraints) affecting compliance with Federal standards. A

vehicle equipped with a snow plow, however, would still be subject to State and local motor vehicle safety regulations, "after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale."

I hope this clarifies the matter for you.