ID: 16788.ztv

Mr. L. W. Camp
Director, Automotive Safety Office
Environmental and Safety Engineering
Ford Motor Company
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126

Dear Mr. Camp:

This replies to your letter of December 16, 1997, to Dr. Martinez asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S7.8.2 of Standard No. 108 requires that the mounting and aiming mechanisms of headlamps installed on motor vehicles be accessible without the removal of any vehicle parts "except for protective covers removable without the use of tools." You ask whether "a hard object, such as the vehicle ignition key" is a "tool" within the meaning of S7.8.2.

We have concluded that an ignition key is a "tool" as contemplated by S7.8.2. A "tool" is defined as "1. An implement, esp. one held in the hand, as a hammer, saw, or file for performing or facilitating mechanical operation. 2. Any instrument of manual operation." (Random House Complete Unabridged Dictionary, Special Second Edition, 1996, at p. 1995).

The ignition key, or any other hard object, is an instrument of manual operation held in the hand to facilitate the removal of the headlamp covers, and therefore a "tool." Compare with S5.1.1.27(a)(5) and (b)(4) which specify that center high mounted stop lamps "shall provide access for convenient replacement of the bulbs without special tools" (emphasis supplied). Had you asked whether an ignition key was a "special tool" we might well have said that it is not, because any hard object could be used to provide access to the bulbs and access does not require a tool specifically designed for that purpose.

We note that Ford initially intended that all covers be removable by hand, and that the reason for your request is that "manufacturing variation of the plastic push pins and vehicle structure can result in elevated retention forces" in "approximately 30% of the attachments." While this is regrettable, identification of the problem at this stage should allow Ford time to resolve this problem before production of your 1999 vehicle commences and forestall any question of compliance with S7.8.2.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.2/12/98

ID: 16803.ztv

Mr. Jeff Politano
834 Florida Avenue
McDonald, OH 44437

Dear Mr. Politano:

This responds to your letter of December 7, 1997, with respect to an idea of yours. As you describe it, "the product is a small lighted device to be attached to an automobile's front windshield and rear window." The purpose of this device is to enable two or more automobiles traveling together at night to stay in a group. The device would be sold in the after market.

You have asked if there are laws as to "size, color, flashing or blinking, special design, shape, etc."

As a general rule, the legality of the use of after market lighting devices is governed by State rather than Federal law. Therefore, we recommend that you consult the Ohio authorities for their comments on your idea.

Installation of the lamp would require a modification of the vehicle as originally manufactured. Under our laws, modifications performed by the vehicle owner do not violate Federal regulations. However, modifications performed by other persons, such as dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses, must not create a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard including Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Although Standard No. 108 prescribes no specific performance requirements for a supplementary lamp such as yours, it does require that your lamp be steady burning, rather than flashing. In addition, your lamp must not impair the effectiveness of original lighting equipment required by Standard No 108. If your lamp emitted red light, we think its steady-burning presence would have the potential to impair the effectiveness of the intermittently operating center highmounted red stop lamp, most of which are located in the rear window area where your lamp might be. As for other lamp colors, States generally restrict blue lights to emergency vehicles.

If you have any questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office would be pleased to answer them (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.1/30/98

ID: 16805.ztv

Mr. A. Dorian Challoner
311 Carriage Place
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266

Dear Mr. Challoner:

Representative Jane Harmon has asked us to address the problem you reported to her office about your mother's car.

According to the information you provided Ms. Harmon, the car is a 1990 Dodge Dynasty manufactured for the Canadian market. Since 1990, your mother has driven the car in the United States under Ontario registration. She has become a permanent resident of the United States, specifically, California. However, California will not register the car until you obtain a letter from its manufacturer saying that the vehicle is identical in all material respects to one that was manufactured to conform to all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Further, it requires that you contact this Department "for the proper clearance letter."

You have attempted to obtain such a letter from Chrysler Corporation. However, the company has informed you that it cannot grant your request because the Canadian-market car fails to comply with the requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 that a 1990 model car must be equipped with either an automatic seat belt system, or an air bag. It also advises that modification is not feasible, due to the cost.

Your mother's situation is similar to that experienced by a number of others in California who have tried to register a Canadian car. I would like to explain how the importation process was supposed to have worked in your mother's case. As a general rule, a motor vehicle must conform to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and be certified as meeting those standards, in order to be imported permanently into the United States. Non-residents of the United States are permitted to enter their non-conforming vehicles into the United States for a continuous period of up to one year, provided that they declare in writing that they will not sell the car in the United States and that they will export it at the end of that time. If the vehicle remains in the United States for longer than a year, there is a technical violation of the importation regulations. If your mother made yearly trips to Canada in her car, there would appear to be no violation of this regulation if the successive re-importations were for periods of a year or less.

There is a substantial similarity between Canadian and U.S. passenger car safety standards, so much so that the agency admits Canadian vehicles on a permanent basis if their manufacturer provides a letter to the owner attesting to the vehicle's compliance. However, if a manufacturer will not provide such a letter, the owner must follow the procedure established by statute. This procedure was established by Congress and requires the Administrator of this agency to have made a decision that the vehicle in question is capable of being conformed to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This decision is made on the Administrator's motion, or after a petition by a Registered Importer. A Registered Importer is a person that the agency recognizes as capable of modifying and certifying noncomplying vehicles to meet the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and who has agreed with the importer to modify and certify the car. If the Administrator finds that the particular vehicle model is capable of being so modified, the vehicle may be imported under bond. Conformance work would be performed by a Registered Importer, who then certifies the car to NHTSA. When the agency is satisfied with the Registered Importer's certification, it issues the bond release letter that California requires for registration. Thus, had your mother followed the course prescribed by law for permanent importations, she would have contracted with a Registered Importer, who would have petitioned on her behalf. If such a petition had been granted (no decisions have ever been made regarding 1990 Canadian Dodge cars), the Registered Importer would have brought the vehicle into compliance with Standard No. 208, and the vehicle then could have been registered in California.

At this point, your mother has two options. The first is to return the vehicle to Canada (or export it to Mexico, which is closer to you). Second, she may contract with a Registered Importer for the petition/modification and certification procedure described in the previous paragraph. The closest Registered Importer to you is G & K Automotive Conversions, 3231 South Standard Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92705 (phone: 714-545-9503; fax: 714-545-7667). While this procedure may seem to be unduly burdensome for the owner of a vehicle that has been operated in the United States for some years, there are benefits to following it. If Chrysler Corporation, which manufactured the car, recalls 1990 Dodge Dynasty vehicles for safety or emissions reasons, the Registered Importer is required to notify your mother of the recall and provide an appropriate remedy. In addition, the presence of the certification label on the vehicle should relieve future owners of the car of the need to re-satisfy registration authorities in California or elsewhere that the vehicle meets all U.S. requirements, and thus make possible resale easier.

If your mother chooses to sell the car rather than to arrange for it to be brought into compliance with Standard No. 208, she would not be violating Federal law if she sold it in the United States. However, it would be in the best interest of motor vehicle safety if the sale of this nonconforming vehicle took place in Canada, its country of origin, where it conforms to local standards, or in Mexico, where the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards are not in effect.

We regret that we cannot be of greater assistance. If you have any additional questions, please contact Taylor Vinson of this Office at phone number 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
cc: Representative Jane Harmon
Torrance, CA Office
ref:591
d.2/18/98

ID: 16845.wkm

Mr. Harold E. Hutchings
10 Winslow Road
North Quincy, MA 02171

Dear Mr. Hutchings:

This responds to your letter following up on your earlier request for information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), relating to this agency's rulemaking actions on antilock braking systems (ABS) for light duty vehicles. I apologize for the delay in responding.

Your letter discusses problems you have encountered obtaining information on ABS. In your FOIA request, you had asked for, among other things, "a report you received from the General Motors Engineers [sic] who reported after extensive investigations the problems with A.B.S. were unresolvable." In response, Ms. Coleman of my staff stated that the agency was unable to locate this specific report. However, she stated that material provided by General Motors Corporation (GM) to the agency pertaining to the ABS rulemaking can be obtained from the agency's Technical Reference Library (which has since been renamed Technical Information Services (TIS)) , and provided the docket number for the ABS action (Docket No. 93-94). According to your letter, you contacted TIS and received a list of commenters and other entries to that docket. You said you then contacted the National Technical Information Service "regarding those numbers" but were informed that you need to provide "proper D.O.T. and other numbers" to obtain the information you seek.

As Ms. Coleman wrote you previously, the agency was not able to locate the GM report in our files. However, all material submitted to the agency by GM pertaining to the ABS rulemaking action is listed on the index you received from TIS. You may obtain copies of any document listed in the index by contacting TIS and referencing the document number shown on the listing. You may contact TIS by visiting, calling or writing to that office at the following address: NHTSA, Room 5108, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington D.C. 20590.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:105
d.6/5/98

ID: 16854.nhf

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding the modification of a 1997 Ford E150 van for a driver with quadriplegia secondary to a spinal cord injury. Specifically, you request a waiver of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as the modifications proposed for this particular vehicle will require replacing the original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) steering wheel with a smaller steering wheel. The new steering wheel would be too small to be fitted with an air bag. You explained that the smaller steering wheel is needed to accommodate the driver's limited range of motion. I regret the delay in my response.

While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot provide the specific relief you seek, since we are not authorized to grant waivers of safety standards under these circumstances, we can assure you that we will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the steering wheel and column on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the original steering wheel and air bag and replacing it with a smaller steering wheel that lacks an air bag would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the steering wheel and air bag to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. We are enclosing a warning label stating that the air bag has been deactivated. For the safety of everyone who may ride in the vehicle, we ask that you affix this label on the sun visor above the deactivated air bag. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Warning Label
ref:VSA#208
d.5/22/98

ID: 16855.nhf

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, New York 12106

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding modification of a 1997 minivan for a driver with muscular dystrophy. I regret the delay in responding. You request a waiver of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as the modifications proposed for this particular vehicle will require the removal of the original equipment manufacturers (OEM) steering wheel. In a telephone call with Nicole Fradette of my staff, you explained that your client has limited range of motion due to his disability. You explained that your client needs to replace the OEM steering wheel and air bag with a high-tech steering system that incorporates a reduced diameter steering wheel and reduced effort steering. The new steering wheel would be too small to be fitted with an air bag.

While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot provide the specific relief you seek, since we are not authorized to grant waivers of safety standards under these circumstances, we can assure you that we will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the steering wheel and column on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the original steering wheel and air bag and replacing it with the high tech steering system would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the steering wheel and air bag to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The vehicle manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. We are enclosing a warning label stating that the air bag has been deactivated. For the safety of everyone who may ride in the vehicle, we ask that you affix this label on the sun visor above the deactivated air bag. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Warning Label
ref:VSA
d.5/22/98

ID: 16856-1.pja

Mr. Gerald W. Remillard
President
Best Trailer Corporation
3614 Badger Road
Kewaskum, WI 53040

Dear Mr. Remillard:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether two tilt bed trailer designs that your company is considering manufacturing would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. As explained below, trailer design #1 probably is excluded as a low chassis vehicle, while trailer design #2 is not excluded, and a compliant underride guard would need to be provided.

Although you did not give bed height dimensions, the diagrams on the literature you enclosed with your letter indicate that the bottom of the bed on both vehicles is more than 560 mm above the ground. Design #1 has at the rear of the bed a full width vertical cross member, which you refer to as a rear channel, with the tail lamps set within it. This channel extends below the lower surface of the bed of the trailer and you state that its bottom surface is less than 560 mm above the ground. There are also two flip up approach ramps, which you refer to as "flipper ramps," that bridge the gap between the ground and the bed when the trailer bed is tilted, and flip over and lie on top of the trailer bed during transit. Design # 2 has at the back of the bed a triangular full width "approach ramp" that allows cargo equipment to transition from the ground up onto the bed without encountering the "bump" of the edge of the bed. When the bed is placed into the horizontal position, for transit, the approach ramp is mechanically or pneumatically lowered to hang from the rear of the trailer in a near vertical position in which the lower edge of the plate is less than 560 mm above the ground.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded categories that are relevant for the purposes of this letter are low chassis vehicles and special purpose vehicles.

Low chassis vehicles are defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having a chassis that extends behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires and a lower rear surface that meets the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through 5.1.3 of this section." In other words, the chassis itself must satisfy the configuration requirements applicable to a guard when the vehicle is outfitted for transit. The only part of your vehicles that may meet these configuration requirements is the rear channel of Design #1 and the approach ramp of Design #2, so the question becomes whether these are considered to be part of the "chassis" of the vehicles. Chassis is defined in S4 as "the load supporting frame structure of a motor vehicle." There are two elements to this definition that must be satisfied: "load supporting" and "frame structure."

To be considered "load supporting," the frame structure has to support load when the trailer is performing its function. Generally, this means that the structure would have to contribute to supporting the cargo load when the trailer is in transit.

To be considered part of the frame structure, a structural member must be either an integral part of the overall frame structure, or be connected with other frame structural members in a way that is necessary to the structural integrity of the trailer. One factor the agency considers in deciding whether a structural member is part of the frame is its size and strength. Frame structural components often are the major structures defining the shape of the trailer. Although frame structure is not limited to the largest frame components (i.e., the frame rails for most trailers), generally frame components are substantial and have strength similar to other frame components. Moveable components may "lock" into the frame structure sufficiently that they are integral with other frame members-in this situation NHTSA may consider the combined components to be one frame unit. However, the agency also looks at the purpose and function of the structural member in supporting the trailer and its load.

We conclude that the rear channel of Design #1 is part of the chassis. It directly supports the load of the trailer. The rear channel is an integral part of the overall frame structure of the trailer. It is of similar size and strength to the other structural members such as the side rails, and it helps define the boundary of the trailer bed. Since a chassis member meets the configurational requirements of S5.1.1 through S5.1.3, Design #1 is excluded from the underride guard regulations.

Applying these principles to your Design #2, we find that the approach ramp is not part of the chassis. The approach ramp does not meet the "load supporting" aspect of the chassis definition because the approach ramp does not contribute to supporting cargo load. The ramp is also not part of the frame structure of the trailer. The approach ramp does not define the shape of the trailer. Instead, it hangs down from the rear end of the trailer, forming a protrusion from the outline of the trailer bed. Neither the approach plate nor the steel plate arms attaching the approach plate to the sides of the trailer bed are of a similar size or strength to the other frame components. The approach plate is not locked into another frame structural member in any manner, and is not considered integral with another frame member. In consideration of these factors the approach ramp it is not part of the frame structure, but an attachment. The approach ramp is not part of the chassis, and Design #2 is not a low chassis vehicle.

We turn now to the question of whether Design #2 is excluded as a special purpose vehicle. A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3."⁽¹⁾ Again, the approach ramp is the only part of your Design #2 trailer that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in the area that could be occupied be the rear underride guard. Therefore, the approach ramp would have to be considered work-performing equipment for the trailer to be excluded.

There is no definition in the standard for "work-performing equipment." In determining the meaning of regulatory language, the first place the agency looks is the plain meaning of the words. In the context which is relevant to this safety standard, "work" is defined as "the transfer of energy from one physical system to another; especially, the transfer of energy to a body by the application of force . . ." "Perform" is defined as "to begin and carry through to completion; do." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1971. Taken together, NHTSA interprets the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. Approach ramps do not perform work in this sense because they merely form a ramp between the ground and the vehicle driving onto the tilt bed.⁽²⁾ Therefore, the approach ramp is not work-performing equipment, and the vehicle does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle.

Since your trailer does not meet the definition of an excluded category, it would have to be equipped with an underride guard meeting our standards. We cannot provide specific guidance on how your Design #2 trailer might be redesigned to accommodate a guard. We note, however, that other manufacturers of tilt bed trailers have told us that they have found engineering solutions that would meet the requirements of the standard without compromising the function of their vehicles. Some of them are using guard designs that deploy when in the flatbed configuration and automatically retract when in the tilted configuration.

Another option to consider is whether your approach ramp could "be" the guard. The approach plate already appears to meet the configurational requirements for an underride guard. If it does not currently meet the strength and energy absorption requirements, you might be able to reinforce or otherwise modify the approach ramp sufficiently so that it would pass these requirements. If you can do this, the approach ramp itself could be labeled and certified as a guard under Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards. Perhaps some of these solutions would work for you, as they have for other manufacturers of tilt bed trailers. We emphasize that you, as the manufacturer of the vehicle, are responsible for the vehicle's compliance.

If you have difficulty redesigning your trailer, the agency would consider a petition for temporary exemption from Standard No. 224. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. We have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of our regulations relating to the protection of confidential business information. Most of the trailer manufacturers submitting petitions for temporary exemption have requested that their financial information remain confidential.

Please note Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submittal.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:224
d.5/22/98

1. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. An unnecessary reference to pipe equipment containing hazardous materials was eliminated. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998).

2. To the extent that this interpretation is inconsistent with interpretation letters to Mr. Thomas M. Joyce and Mr. R. H. Anderson of Landoll Corporation, interpreting the frame rails of tilt bed trailers as work-performing equipment, those prior interpretations are superceded. The basic answer in those letters did not depend on this point, and the analysis in this letter is more thorough.

ID: 16857.drn

Mr. Howard Magor
Chairman
Aluminum Body Corporation
1600 W. Washington Blvd.
P.O. Box 40
Montebello, CA 90640

Dear Mr. Magor:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your company's special purpose aluminum body enclosures, used to provide security and environmental control for electronic systems, are motor vehicles. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter states that your enclosures are designed to protect equipment used for data acquisition, satellite monitoring and launch control, earth links, virtual reality training devices, data transmission, and for ground systems such as telescopes and aircraft landing systems. You state that although the enclosures "utilize a semi-trailer format" and are built with commercial trailer undercarriages, they are "for the most part" designed for use on fixed sites. The enclosures' use on the highway "is only incidental to their primary purpose." You further wrote that the enclosures are usually pre-positioned, and supported by four or more leveling jacks, when on the site. The jacks provide stability for the equipment in the enclosures.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that once on a work site, the enclosures tend to stay there for months. Your customers move the enclosures only to get to the next job, which is also usually of long duration. You stated that you are aware of an instance where one of your enclosures was placed at the end of an airport runway for several years.

NHTSA's regulations 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.

Based on your description, we believe that your company's enclosures are not motor vehicles. This is based on the use of the vehicles. The on-highway use of the product is similar to that of mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which the agency has determined are not "motor vehicles." Such equipment typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site and use the highway only to move between job sites. 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 NHTSA's statute, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental.") Your enclosures stay on job sites for extended periods of time (usually for months) and only use the highway to move from site to site. Because their use of the highway is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicles were manufactured, the enclosures are not motor vehicles.

Because they are not motor vehicles, your enclosures need not meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571), or any other NHTSA regulation. I note that, if the agency were to receive additional information indicating that the enclosures use the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation.

Please note that because a State may require equipment such as your enclosures to be registered, you may wish to contact the State in which your product will be sold or used about any State requirements that may apply.

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.2/24/98

ID: 16859.wkm

Mr. Donald L. Busey
Director of Dealer Services
Pennsylvania Automotive Association
1925 North Front Street
Post Office Box 2955
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2955

Dear Mr. Busey:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether a tractor that is converted to a straight truck is required to be equipped with an antilock brake system (ABS) as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.121). In a telephone conversation with Mr. Myers on April 3, 1998, you stated that the trucks in question are new Mack tractors equipped with 3 axles with a 4th new axle normally added in the conversion, and that most are converted to dump or cement trucks.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U. S. Code (hereinafter Safety Act) authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. This agency enforces the standards after the fact by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them for compliance with the standards. The agency also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If the vehicles or equipment pass, no further action is taken. If they do not pass, or if a manufacturer or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determines that a noncompliance or a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify the purchasers of the noncomplying or defective product and remedy the problem at no expense to the consumer. Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to substantial civil penalties.

NHTSA considers that a motor vehicle or item of equipment is "new" from the date of its manufacture until its first retail sale. Vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that each new vehicle they produce complies, as of the date of manufacture, with all then-applicable FMVSSs. In this case, if a new tractor is converted to a straight truck prior to the vehicle's first retail sale, the company making the conversion would be considered an "alterer" under our regulations. A person who alters a previously certified new vehicle must further certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable FMVSSs. See 49 CFR 567.7 (copy enclosed).

Subparagraph S5.1.6.1(a) of Standard No. 121 requires single-unit vehicles, including "straight trucks," manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 to be equipped with ABS that directly controls the wheels of at least one front axle and the wheels of at least one rear axle. Other axles on the vehicle may be indirectly controlled by the ABS. With respect to truck tractors, subparagraph S5.1.6.1(b) requires that truck tractors manufactured on or after March 1, 1997 be equipped with ABS that directly controls the wheels of at least one front axle and those of at least one rear axle, with the wheels of at least one axle being independently controlled. Again, other axles may be indirectly controlled by ABS.

Under Part 567, an alterer of a tractor manufactured on or after March 1, 1997 must allow the original certification label required by Part 567 to remain on the vehicle, and shall affix an additional label to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSSs affected by the alteration and in effect on a date no earlier than the original date of manufacture nor later than the date the alterations were completed. Thus, if a tractor is altered to a straight truck, the alterer must certify that it meets all applicable FMVSSs for straight trucks as of a date no earlier than the date of manufacture of the tractor nor later than the date of completion of the alteration, or any date in between. If this date is before March 1, 1998, the straight truck would not be required to be equipped with ABS. Further, if either the gross vehicle weight rating or any gross axle weight rating, as altered, are different from those shown on the original certification label, the alterer must provide those modified values.

Also enclosed for your information are fact sheets entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Ref:121#VSA#571
d.5/13/98

ID: 16867.ztv

Mr. Clarence Ogrodnick
Power Deck Systems, Inc.
5633 Birch Avenue
Vegreville
Alberta T9C 1J7
Canada

Dear Mr. Ogrodnick:

This is in reply to your fax sent to us on January 6, 1998. Your company manufactures "an after market product in North America . . . a hydraulic power deck made to load and unload cargo such as snowmobiles . . . ." The deck "mounts into the box on all makes of regular shortbox and longbox pick up trucks." You wish to ensure that it meets U.S. Federal regulations "as to width, height, length, and light location specifications" so that you can be certain that your product "is safe and legal everywhere."

There are no U.S. Federal regulations that govern the width, height, and length of your after market hydraulic power deck. Furthermore, as a general rule, the laws that govern the use of after market equipment are those of the individual States, rather than Federal law. As we are not conversant with the laws of the States, I am afraid we cannot advise you on them.

If the hydraulic power deck is added to the pickup truck by a "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business," under our law this modification must not create a noncompliance with Federal lighting requirements (or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard with which the truck was manufactured to conform). Removal or obscuration of the lamp are the two principal ways in which noncompliances are created. The addition of a supplementary lamp performing the function of the original in approximately the same location is a way of ensuring that original equipment requirements continue to be met. Note that this compliance restriction applies only to the four entities named, and not to a vehicle owner who installs a power deck without the assistance of a "manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business."

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.1/30/98