ID: GF004598

Mr. John L'Espoir
Enid Drill Systems, Inc.
4510 East Market Street
Enid, OK 73701-9686

Dear Mr. L'Espoir:

This responds to your facsimile of June 16 and your July 8 phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff, regarding certain water well drilling equipment that your company produces. In your letter, you ask whether the water well drilling equipment incorporating a tandem axle trailer design is subject to the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 (FMVSS No. 121). You requested and received our interpretation on a similar issue in 1999. Based on the previously submitted informational materials and your recent conversation with George Feygin, our answer is no, provided that the equipment you now intend to manufacture is indeed similar to the equipment for which you sought our earlier interpretation.

In your previous submission, you stated that your equipment is used off-road to drill water wells, and that some of your designs incorporate tandem axle and triple axle semi-trailers equipped with air brakes. During a recent phone conversation, you indicated that the drilling equipment now in question will be substantially similar in design and function to the equipment subject to the previous interpretation. Please note that our present interpretation extends only to the type of drilling equipment previously described in your 1999 interpretation request.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.), hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) of the Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

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

In reviewing the information you have previously provided, it is our opinion that the water well drilling equipment is not a motor vehicle within the statutory definition. The water well drilling equipment is designed to be used primarily at off-road job sites and, although capable of being transported on-road from one job site to another, its on-road use is only incidental to the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. This contrasts with instances in which vehicles such as cement mixer trucks and dump trucks frequently use the public roads going to and from off-road job sites, but remain there for only a limited period of time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act because their on-road use is more than merely incidental.

In view of the above discussion, your water well drilling equipment is not a motor vehicle and is therefore not required to comply with the FMVSSs, including the ABS requirements of Standard No. 121.

We note that our interpretations in this area are based in part on a court decision issued in 1978, addressing mobile construction equipment. Subsequent legal developments make the holding of that court decision open for reassessment. Moreover, some mobile construction equipment may be using the public roads with greater frequency than the equipment the court decided were not motor vehicles subject to our jurisdiction. At some point in the future, we may revisit the issue of whether certain equipment should be considered motor vehicles. However, if we were to take such action, we would announce it publicly, and address such issues as what standards should apply to the vehicles and what effective date is appropriate.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.10/20/03

ID: MBWletter10702

Mr. Frank Multerer
President, MBW Inc.
250 Hartford Road
P.O. Box 440
Slinger, WI53086-0440

Dear Mr. Multerer:

This responds to your letter of September 18, 2002, concerning requirements for mortar mixers manufactured by MBW Inc., which are used by the masonry trade to process the binding material for the installation of brick, block, and stone at various construction sites. These mortar mixers may be wheel-mounted and towed to a jobsite, or alternatively they may be transported on a truck or trailer. You asked for our interpretation as to whether mortar mixers are subject to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements. For the reasons that follow, the answer is no.

By way of background, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.) (Safety Act) authorizes the NHTSA to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.The Safety Act defines a "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.

49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6).

If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the above definition, then it must comply with all applicable FMVSS. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then it need not comply with the agencys safety standards because such vehicle falls outside the agencys scope of authority.

Whether the agency will consider construction equipment, such as a mortar mixer, to be a motor vehicle depends upon 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 jobsites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single jobsite. 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.

However, in those cases where certain types of construction equipment make more frequent use of the roadways, the agency has determined such equipment to be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. For example, dump trucks have been determined to be motor vehicles because they regularly use the highways to travel between jobsites and stay on such jobsites for only a limited period of time, thereby rendering their on-highway use more than "incidental."

Your letter states that mortar mixers can be wheel-mounted so that they may be towed from jobsite to jobsite. Your letter goes on to state that the duration of mortar mixers use on jobsites is variable, ranging from roughly a week at small, residential jobs to many months at large, commercial projects.

Based upon the information and literature you have provided, we do not believe that your mortar mixers are "motor vehicles" as that term is defined by section 102(3) of the Act. This conclusion is based upon the assumption that your equipment generally spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to travel between jobsites. Accordingly, your mortar mixers would not be subject to the FMVSS.

However, that if the agency were to receive additional information indicating that the mortar mixers use the road more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:VSA
d.10/24/02

ID: 07-005972as

ID: 11293b

Mr. Ken Van Sciver
Sciver Corporation
Post Office Box 1283
Broomfield, CO 80038

Dear Mr. Van Sciver:

This responds to your letter of October 3, 1995 to this office requesting information on any safety standards applicable to the Auto Bib, a new product you are developing and marketing. From the promotional material you furnished with your letter, your Auto Bib can be described as a portable cover, of Naugahyde fabric, that clips between the window and door molding of a vehicle's door. The Auto Bib unrolls downward to cover the door, and is intended to protect the door's upholstery from damage caused by children, pets, and the sun.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by randomly purchasing and testing motor vehicles and equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. If a vehicle or item of equipment is found not to comply with applicable standards or is found to have a safety defect, the manufacturer is responsible for remedying the noncompliance or defect at no charge to the customer. NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, or grants clearances for products prior to their introduction into the retail market.

Turning now to the Auto Bib, NHTSA would classify it as an item of motor vehicle equipment, defined in 49 U.S.Code (U.S.C.), '30102(7)(B) as any "part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle." Specifically, the Auto Bib is an accessory if it meets two tests:

a. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

b. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

After reviewing the product literature you enclosed with your letter, we conclude that the Auto Bib is an accessory. The Auto Bib was designed and is being marketed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be in motor vehicles. Even its name indicates its intended purpose. Secondly, the promotional literature makes it clear that the Auto Bib is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, as distinguished from professional vehicle repair businesses, since its stated purpose is to preserve motor vehicle upholstery from damage by children, pets, and the sun.

While the Auto Bib is a motor vehicle accessory, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards applicable to this product. However, you as the manufacturer are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. '' 30116 - 30121 which set forth the recall and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. As noted earlier, in the event that you or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

You asked about state or local requirements that may apply to your product. NHTSA has no information on such requirements. You may, however, be able to obtain some relevant information in that regard from:

Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. 1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 898-0145; Fax (202) 898-0148

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Ref:206 d:12/8/95

ID: nht95-4.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ken Van Sciver -- Sciver Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 10/3/95 letter from Ken Van Sciver to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC 11293)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 3, 1995 to this office requesting information on any safety standards applicable to the Auto Bib, a new product you are developing and marketing. From the promotional material you furnished with your letter, your Auto Bib can be described as a portable cover, of Naugahyde fabric, that clips between the window and door molding of a vehicle's door. The Auto Bib unrolls downward to cover the door, and is intended to protect the door's upholstery from damage caused by children, pets, and the sun.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by randomly purchasing and testing moto r vehicles and equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. If a vehicle or item of equipment is found not to comply with applicable standards or is found to have a safety defect, the manufacturer is responsible for remedying the noncompli ance or defect at no charge to the customer. NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, or grants clearances for products prior to their introduction into the retail market.

Turning now to the Auto Bib, NHTSA would classify it as an item of motor vehicle equipment, defined in 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.), @ 30102(7)(B) as any "part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle." Specifically, the Auto Bib is an accessory if it meets two tests:

a. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

b. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

After reviewing the product literature you enclosed with your letter, we conclude that the Auto Bib is an accessory. The Auto Bib was designed and is being marketed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be in motor veh icles. Even its name indicates its intended purpose. Secondly, the promotional literature makes it clear that the Auto Bib is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, as distinguished from professional vehicle r epair businesses, since its stated purpose is to preserve motor vehicle upholstery from damage by children, pets, and the sun.

While the Auto Bib is a motor vehicle accessory, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards applicable to this product. However, you as the manufacturer are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30116 - 30121 which set fort h the recall and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. As noted earlier, in the event that you or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchaser s of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

You asked about state or local requirements that may apply to your product. NHTSA has no information on such requirements. You may, however, be able to obtain some relevant information in that regard from:

Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. 1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 898-0145; Fax (202) 898-0148

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-4.36

DATE: August 16, 1992

FROM: Robert N. Moore -- No. 203048, Iowa State Penitentiary

TO: Mr. Curry

TITLE: Re: Safety Act; 15 U.S.C., Section 1381 et seq.; F.M.V.S.S. #208

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/28/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert N. Moore (A39; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I'm pleased to make your acquaintance.

This is a request for information, in the form of an official statement from your agency, concerning an interpretation of the above-caption statute and Safety Standard.

Before going further I should inform you that my prison I.D. No., given above, must follow my name on the face of your reply envelope.

The circumstances surrounding this request is a lawsuit I am prosecuting in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. That court is in Peoria, and the suit is captioned as MOORE V. GREEN, CV89-4129.

The factual basis of this action concerns my transportation in a law enforcement vehicle which was a regular, passenger van, with modifications to change it into a "paddy wagon" type of vehicle. The defendants admit that the device did not contain any type of occupant restraint system for my safety. I did sustain injury in the vehicle.

I have based one cause of action upon an alleged violation of the Safety Act and F.M.V.S.S. #208. The suit is presently at the discovery stage; and upon my receipt of answers to Interrogatory questions, both parties have informed the Magistrate of the intention to file motions for summary judgment. I am assuming that the defendants will rely as heavily upon the Interrogatory answers as I plan to do.

It thus appears that our first battle will focus upon the question of whether or not I have been bestowed the equivalent of a right or privilege under the Act to have been provided with a seat belt. And following that question, is that right enforceable under the remedial authority of 42 U.S.C., Section 1983, which is the statute I am using to obtain compensation.

Of course I have no idea of the research capabilities of the Asst. State's Attorney who is defending, but I do know that I can find no legal authority, at least in the cases, which addresses the specific question of whether the Act does in fact create a right to have a restraint system; and the related question of whether or not Congress has either allowed, or foreclosed a remedy under Section 1983 to enforce that right.

It is at this point where I think everyone involved would benefit from an expert opinion.

I'm sure you are probably aware of the policy of the federal judiciary to defer to, or to at least consult a government agency's own interpretation of the relevant statutes and regulations in these types of cases.

During my research I've discovered several recent opinions where one of the parties wrote an agency, exactly as I am doing here, for opinions or interpretations of the law bearing upon the issues of those particular actions. The written replies were submitted to those courts and were well received by them. I believe your written opinion could also guide our court when I will be required to conduct an agency interpretation analysis in this case.

In case you are disposed towards providing something to clarify the issue in this case, I can offer the following examples as reference points.

The opinion of GOLDEN STATE TRANSIT CORP. V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 110 S.CT. 444, probably frames the entire problem much better than I can explain it.

From the viewpoint of that case, I suppose I could just ask two specific questions to make this an easier task for you:

1. Does the Safety Act, and F.M.V.S.S. #208, create a "binding obligation", as opposed to merely expressing a "congressional preference" as to the inclusion of seat belts in motor vehicles?

2. Do any provisions of the Act, or any regulations show that Congress specifically foreclosed a remedy under Section 1983?

I await your reply.

ID: Weiler.1.wpd

Mr. Heinz-Gerd Weiler
Siemens Restraint Systems GmbH
Carl-Zeiss-Str. 9
D-63755 Alzenau
Germany

Dear Mr. Weiler:

This responds to your March 24, 2004, e-mail to Roger Saul, in which you seek clarification regarding the effective date for new or modified test requirements when various Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) are amended. You are concerned because your firm is involved in engineering and vehicle crash testing. Specifically, you ask whether, after a vehicle is already in production or the certification test program for such a vehicle is underway, it is necessary to repeat the relevant tests using the new test methods (or whether the original testing remains valid). If new testing is required, you ask at what point such testing must commence (e.g., within a specified time limit after the effective date of the changes or at the start of the next model year) in order for the vehicle to be sold in the U.S.

We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture (see 49 U.S.C. 30115 and 49 CFR Part 567, Certification). Each vehicle must be so certified.

Periodically, the agency may amend FMVSSs. In some instances, amendment of a standard may involve modification of existing test procedures. Each final rule amending a standard is published in the Federal Register and specifies an effective date for the changes to the standard. For motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment produced on or after that effective date, manufacturers are required to certify compliance with the standard as modified, including any new testing requirements.

As further clarification, we note that each of this agencys safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA follows the test procedures and conditions in effect at the time of vehicle certification when conducting its compliance testing.

Manufacturers are not required to test their products in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the product at all, as their basis for certifying that the product complies with all applicable standards. A manufacturer may choose any valid means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard and to provide a basis for its certification of compliance.

If the agency has reason to believe that an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard(s). If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer will have to recall the product to bring it into compliance at no charge to the customer.

In addition, the manufacturer will be subject to civil penalties, unless it can establish that it had no reason to know, despite exercising "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means) to ensure compliance, that the product did not in fact comply with the safety standard(s) (49 U.S.C. 30115(a) and 30165). This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "reasonable care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:567
d.5/10/04

ID: nht95-7.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ken Van Sciver -- Sciver Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 10/3/95 letter from Ken Van Sciver to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC 11293)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 3, 1995 to this office requesting information on any safety standards applicable to the Auto Bib, a new product you are developing and marketing. From the promotional material you furnished with your letter, your Auto Bib can be described as a portable cover, of Naugahyde fabric, that clips between the window and door molding of a vehicle's door. The Auto Bib unrolls downward to cover the door, and is intended to protect the door's upholstery from damage caused by children, pets, and the sun.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by randomly purchasing and testing motor vehicles and equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. If a vehicle or item of equipment is found not to comply with applicable standards or is found to have a safety defect, the manufacturer is responsible for remedying the noncompliance or defect at no charge to the customer. NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, or grants clearances for products prior to their introduction into the retail market.

Turning now to the Auto Bib, NHTSA would classify it as an item of motor vehicle equipment, defined in 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.), @ 30102(7)(B) as any "part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle." Specifically, the Auto Bib is an accessory if it meets two tests:

a. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

b. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

After reviewing the product literature you enclosed with your letter, we conclude that the Auto Bib is an accessory. The Auto Bib was designed and is being marketed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be in motor vehicles. Even its name indicates its intended purpose. Secondly, the promotional literature makes it clear that the Auto Bib is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, as distinguished from professional vehicle repair businesses, since its stated purpose is to preserve motor vehicle upholstery from damage by children, pets, and the sun.

While the Auto Bib is a motor vehicle accessory, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards applicable to this product. However, you as the manufacturer are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30116 - 30121 which set forth the recall and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. As noted earlier, in the event that you or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

You asked about state or local requirements that may apply to your product. NHTSA has no information on such requirements. You may, however, be able to obtain some relevant information in that regard from:

Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. 1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 898-0145; Fax (202) 898-0148

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht80-1.38

DATE: 03/21/80

FROM: JAMES W. LAWRENCE -- MANAGER ENGINEERING RELIABILITY & GOVERNMENT STANDARDS DEPT. WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION

TO: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN.

TITLE: FMVSS-115 REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS FOR GLIDER KITS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Berndt:

White Motor Corporation manufactures Glider Kits which are sold through its Service Department for use in rebuilding used and wrecked vehicles. FMVSS-115 does not apply to these kits because they are not new vehicles as manufactured.

There are, however, some states which allow the rebuilt vehicle to carry the identity of the kit, rather than that of the scrapped vehicle. To facilitate the registration of these vehicles, White issues a Manufacturers' Statement of Origin and a vehicle identification number. Registration as a White also provides traceability for recall should the need arise.

White believes, and requests confirmation that, although the standard does not apply to these vehicles, the standard does not prohibit the application of VIN to a Glider Kit.

ID: 05-007521drn-2

Mr. Eric J. Zerphy
Executive Vice President & COO
Solar Technology, Inc.
7620 Cetronia Road,
Allentown, PA 18106




Dear Mr. Zerphy:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning whether your companys "Agile Displays" products are "motor vehicles" making you subject to the requirements of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act to provide certain specified "early warning reporting" (EWR) information to NHTSA. You have enclosed literature describing the products, which are all portable, solar-powered LED displays that are intended to convey messages. Our response is provided below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) are promulgated.

The information you provided, along with your website, indicate that your products fall into a number of categories, such as portable trailer mounted displays, vehicle mounted displays, and wall mounted displays.

You asked whether any of the Agile Displays products are considered "motor vehicles". 49 CFR Part 579, "Reporting of Information and Communications About Potential Defects" at Section 579.4(a) states that for purposes of EWR, "motor vehicle" is used as defined in 49 U.S.C. Section 30102. This statutory provision is also used to determine applicability of the FMVSSs. 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6) defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

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.

We have issued a number of interpretations of "motor vehicle". Whether the agency considers your products with axles to be "motor vehicles" depends on their 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. 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".

We have carefully reviewed the product literature included with your letter. We note that among the descriptions of the products are the following:"with trailer-mounted options, Agile Displays answers your needs for both permanent and temporary, easy-to-move signage;" "easy portability, Agile Displays mobile LED signage goes anywhere you need your message to go;" and "Easily relocated to any location where information is needed immediately". These descriptions indicate that the Agile Displays products on wheels are intended to regularly use the public roads.

Thus, it is our opinion that the following products are motor vehicles, specifically trailers: all Silent Messenger models; the Silent Messenger II; the Silent Messenger III; and the Silent Sentinel. The agency would consider the use of these products on the public roads to be a primary purpose, and not incidental. Since these products are motor vehicles, they would be subject to the FMVSSs. Each of these products 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.

In addition, as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you would be required to submit identifying information on your company and its products to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification and vehicle identification number (VIN) deciphering information in accordance with 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements. 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.

I also note that the Vehicle Mount Arrow Boards and Message Signs appear to be items of motor vehicle equipment. The two-pronged test for whether a product is "motor vehicle equipment" is first, whether a substantial portion of its expected use is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles and second, whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

Based on the product literature, it appears that a substantial portion of the expected use of the Vehicle Mount Arrow Boards and Message Signs is related to being placed on a motor vehicle. The product description includes: "Dimensions at base are designed to fit a wide variety of truck beds" and "Skid takes minimal space in truck bed, leaving room for cargo and tools". Photographs of the stand depict them as being exactly wide enough to fit into the beds of Ford F150 pick-up trucks.

Further, the advertising of the product focuses on ease of use - "quick programming" and "rapid, simple, one-person deployment and transportation". These statements lead us to conclude that the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. For these reasons, we conclude that the Vehicle Mount Arrow Boards and Message Signs are motor vehicle equipment.

NHTSA has not issued any Federal motor vehicle safety standard that directly regulates the performance of products such as the Vehicle Mount Arrow Boards and Message Signs. Nevertheless, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, your company is subject to the requirements in Title 49 U.S.C. Sections 30118 30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In a telephone conversation, you advised Dorothy Nakama of my staff that SolarTech manufactures more than 500 trailers per year. Early warning reporting requirements for your company as a manufacturer of trailers are specified at 49 CFR Section 579.24. You may review NHTSAs early warning information on-line at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ewr. Under the heading "March 19, 2004" is listed the "Compendium for Early Warning Reporting for Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles Having an Annual Production of 500 or More Vehicles" and a compendium for motor vehicle equipment manufacturers.

I hope this information is helpful. In addition to "Requirements for Trailer Manufacturers," I am enclosing a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment". If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:VSA
d.1/4/06