ID: 9345

Cheryl Graham, District Manager
Northeast Region
ARI
P.O. Box 5039
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054

Dear Ms. Graham:

We have received your letter of November 10, 1993, asking about the permissibility of aftermarket installation of an auxiliary pair of stop lamps "at each side of the rear window."

By way of background information the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). Under that Act, the sole restraint upon modifications to vehicles in use is that, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the modifications must not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on . . . a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

In NHTSA's view, if the modifications tend to impair the safety effectiveness of the "device or element of design", then, at the minimum, a partial inoperability may have occurred within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. The question raised by your letter, therefore, is whether the installation of the auxiliary stop lamps in that location would impair the effectiveness of the three original equipment stop lamps.

NHTSA decided to require the center highmounted stop lamp in addition to the then-existing original equipment two-lamp stop lamp system following research which indicated that a three- lamp system of this configuration was demonstrably more effective in preventing rear end crashes than other rear end lighting systems that were tested, and considerably lower in cost. Included in the testing was a four-lamp system which incorporated two lamps at each side of the rear window, but no tests were conducted on the five-lamp system you describe. The reasons for the better performance of the three-lamp system are unclear, but the triangular lighting array proved to be more effective than the trapezoidal four-lamp system (and more effective than a system tested which separated the usual stop lamp from the taillamp).

Your customer appears to believe that the ability of following drivers to avoid rear end crashes is enhanced by a five-lamp stop lamp system. On the other hand, your proposed system, by incorporating the two lamps at each side of the rear window, would appear to change the lighting array. We cannot say that the five-lamp system would either enhance or detract from safety. Thus, we cannot find that the additional lamps would "render inoperative" the original equipment three-lamp system, and it would be permissible under the regulations of this agency. However, the permissibility of such a modification would be determinable under State law. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the various States and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an interpretation. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

You have also asked "if the work is done improperly and results in an accident, where does the liability lie?" This question is a matter of state law, and we suggest that you consult a local attorney concerning it.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d.2/7/94

ID: 9719

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter of February 21, 1994, requesting further clarification of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (as amended at 57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Section S5.5.3(c) states that "(e)ach opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape."The July 7, 1993 letter also stated that the agency planned to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. This notice has not yet been published. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape. Your letter referenced our July 7, 1993 letter to you in which we stated that S5.5.3(c) permits interruptions in the tape necessary to accommodate curved surfaces and functional components. You requested confirmation "that retro-reflective tape around the perimeter of the rear of a school bus can be used to satisfy the requirements of S5.5.3(c)."

I cannot interpret the requirements of S5.5.3(c) as you request, since for many, if not most, designs the nearest possible location will be closer than the perimeter of the bus. While we appreciate your concerns about durability if numerous cuts or notches are made to accommodate rivets, our July 7 letter stated that manufacturers have the option of placing the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets. As an example, from the illustrations you enclosed, it appears that it may be possible to apply retroreflective tape outside the rivets adjacent to the lower portions of the door. Thus, that would be the nearest possible location, rather than the perimeter of the bus itself. I note, however, that the illustrations do not provide sufficient detail of all obstructions for us to determine the nearest possible location for each design.

I also note that your letter stated in support of your request that all school buses are required to have a rear emergency exit. While this is true, the type of emergency exit will vary and retroreflective tape at the perimeter of the exit would allow rescuers to immediately know the precise location of the exit. Moreover, retroreflective tape at the perimeter would enable rescuers to immediately know which type of exit is in this location. This information could be vitally important. Because push-out windows are not required to have a means of releasing the exit from outside the bus (S5.3.3.2), this information would allow rescuers to quickly determine that they should move to the sides of the bus to locate an exit they can open.

Your letter asked the agency to treat it as a petition for rulemaking if we did not interpret the standard as you requested. You will be notified of our decision to grant or deny your petition.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:3/28/94

ID: GF009138

Mr. Kenneth M. Bush
Associate Director, Government. Relations
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 East Imperial Highway
PO Box 1100
Brea, CA 92822-1100




Dear Mr. Bush:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, "Occupant protection in interior impact". Specifically, you ask whether side curtain air bag tethers are considered a part of the "stowed system" that is subject to reduced impact speed upper interior component performance requirements. As discussed below, the answer is yes.

By way of background, S6.2 of FMVSS No. 201 sets minimum performance requirements for upper interior components by establishing target areas that must be properly padded or otherwise have energy absorbing properties to minimize head injury in the event of a crash. Compliance with the upper interior component requirements is determined, in part, by measuring the forces experienced by the Free Motion Headform test device (FMH) when it is propelled into certain targets on the vehicle interior at the speed of 24km/h (15 mph), or in some cases, at the reduced impact speed of 19 km/h (12 mph).

Air bag systems are frequently stowed (in their un-deployed state) in the same interior areas where certain test targets are located. Targets located on or near air bag systems are subject to reduced impact speed test requirements because the agency is concerned that requiring areas over the stowed portion of an air bag (or its attachment and other hardware) to meet more stringent 15 mph impact requirement could hinder their development and use. Thus, in order to accommodate the current systems and the development of new or additional air bag systems, we determined that use of a 12 mph impact speed, in conjunction with a full-vehicle dynamic side impact pole test, would best help realize the safety benefits of air bags. In relevant part, S6.2(b)(2) of FMVSS No. 201 reads as follows:

"Targets that are over any point inside the area measured along the contour of the vehicle interior within 50 mm (2.0 inch) of the periphery of the stowed system projected perpendicularly onto the vehicle interior surface, including mounting and inflation components but exclusive of any cover or covers, when the dynamically deployed upper interior head protection system is not deployed, shall be impacted by the free motion headform specified in S8.9 at any speed up to and including 19 km/h (12 mph) with the system undeployed" [emphasis added]

You ask if stowed side curtain tethers are considered part of the "stowed system" under S6.2(b)(2).As used in S6.2(b)(2), "stowed system" refers to a stowed dynamically deployed upper interior head protection system. The language ofS6.2(b)(2) specifies that in determining the area subject to reduced impact speed test requirements, consideration is taken of the stowed system, including mounting and inflation components but exclusive of any cover or covers. Side curtain air bag tethers are a part of the stowed dynamically deployed upper interior head protection system, and they are not "covers". Therefore, they are considered in determining whether the target issubject to reduced impact speed test requirements.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.4/17/06

ID: 86-6.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Tim O. Edwards -- Safety Specialist, Kansas Dept. of Transportation, Bureau of Personnel Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Tim O. Edwards Safety Specialist Kansas Department of Transportation Bureau of Personnel Services 7th Floor, State Office Building Topeka, Kansas 66612

I am writing in response to your recent inquiry concerning interior over-head luggage racks on school buses. Your first question seeks this Agency's opinion on whether interior luggage racks on school buses should be considered "projections likely to cause injury" under the National Minimum Schoolbus Standards. These standards are recommendations by the National Conference on School Transportation (NCST), and are not developed by NHTSA. Requests for interpretation of these Standards should be mailed to the Interpretation Committee, addressed to :

Mr. Norman Loper Coordinator of Pupil Transportation Alabama Department of Education 304 Dexter Avenue Montgomery, AL 36130

Requests for modification to these Standards and development of new Standards should be directed to the chairman of the Interim Committee, addressed to:

Mr. Bill G. Loshbough Asst. State Supt. for Transportation Dept. of Education Education Bldg. Santa Fe, NM 87501-2786

In response to your second question, there are no federal standards or regulations which specifically address the issue of over-head luggage racks on school buses. However, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) S571.222 addresses the issue of school bus passenger seating and crash protection. Specifically, S5.3.1 of that standard establishes the head protection zones. As defined in S5.3.1.1, that zone extends up to a horizontal plane 40 inches above the seating reference point. If the luggage rack were to be, located within the head protection zone, the rack would have to meet the head form impact requirement in S5.3.1.2 and the head form force distribution requirement in S5.3.1.3.

Please feel free to contact this office if you have any other questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief counsel

Didre Hom, Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D.C.

Dear Ms. Hom:

In August of this year an inspection was made of a school bus in Caney, Kansas. The Highway Patrol Officer making the inspection determined that the interior over-head luggage racks found on the bus few within the National Minimum (Interior) Standards adopted by Kansas as "a projection likely to cause injury".

This has raised the question of how to handle similar luggage racks on other buses. We would request your agencies opinion on the following questions:

1. Is an interior luggage rack "a projection likely to cause injury?

2. Are there any federal standards, regulations, etc., which would specifically address this problem?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please address your response to:

Kansas Department of Transportation ATTN: Tim O. Edwards, Safety Specialist Bureau of Personnel Services 7th Floor, State Office Building Topeka, Kansas 66612

Sincerely

CONNIE HAFENSTINE, CHIEF BUREAU OF PERSONNEL SERVICES

TIM O. EDWARDS SAFETY SPECIALIST II

ID: Braun

The Braun Corporation
631 W. 11^th St.
PO Box 310
Winamac, IN 46996

Dear Braun Corporation:

This responds to your letter concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 403, Platform lifts installed for motor vehicles, and No. 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, to lifts manufactured before the effective date. I have addressed your concerns below.

In a December 27, 2002, final rule, the agency established FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 in order to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle (67 FR 79416; amended 69 FR 58843, October 1, 2004). FMVSS No. 403 is an equipment standard that specifies minimum performance requirements for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles. FMVSS No. 404 requires that certain vehicles that are manufactured with platform lifts comply with a set of minimum requirements. The effective date of these standards has recently been delayed until April 1, 2005 for FMVSS No. 403 and July 1, 2005 for FMVSS No. 404 (69 FR 76865; December 23, 2004).

In your letter, you expressed concern that individuals would not be able to have a lift that was manufactured prior to the effective date installed on a vehicle that was manufactured on or after the effective date. You explained that it is a common practice for lift users to transfer a lift from one vehicle to another. You expressed concern that FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 will prohibit a lift user from having a lift transferred to a vehicle that was manufactured after the effective date of FMVSS No. 404.

Generally, FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment up to their first retail sale. See 49 U.S.C. 30112. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs before the products can be offered for sale. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122.

The "make inoperative" provision only applies to standards with which a vehicle is certified as complying. If a vehicle with a manufacture date of July 1, 2005, or later is manufactured with a lift, that vehicle must comply with FMVSS No. 404. However, if after first retail sale a platform lift is added to a vehicle manufactured either before or after July 1, 2005, that was not equipped with a lift at first retail sale, there is no duty for a modifier to bring that vehicle into compliance with FMVSS No. 404; i.e. , there is no requirement to equip the modified vehicle with a lift that complies with FMVSS No. 403. Therefore, in such instances, a lift user would be able to have a non-compliant lift taken from an older vehicle and installed on a vehicle that he or she had previously purchased.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any additional questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.1/3/04

ID: nht95-7.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 26, 1995

FROM: Carol Stroebel -- Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bart Stupak -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/21/95 LETTER FROM BART STUPAK TO BRENDA BROWN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Stupak:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Kurt B. Ries, concerning our requirements for school vehicles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA regulates the manufacture of all vehicles, including vans and school buses.

Mr. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium, asks for relief from what he believes is a new Federal regulation. The Northeast Michigan Consortium uses a number of 15-passenger vans to transport students to employment training programs and jobs. Mr. Ries believes the new Federal regulation will require all vehicles transporting students, including vans, to be replaced with "mini-school buses," which he believes is economically unfeasible.

I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. As explained below, the new regulation that Mr. Ries is concerned about is not a Federal regulation, but one that Michigan is considering adopting as State law.

NHTSA has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under our regulations, a "school bus" is a vehicle carrying 11 or more persons, that is sold to transport children to school or school-related events. Congress has directed NHTSA to require school bus manufacturers to meet safety standards on aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Each seller of a new school bus must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting these safety standards.

While NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses, this agency does not regulate the use of vehicles. Thus, we do not have a present or pending requirement that would require Mr. Ries to cease using his vans for school transportation.

The requirements for the use of school buses and other vehicles are matters for each State to decide. We understand from Mr. Roger Lynas, the State Pupil Transportation Director in Michigan, that Michigan is considering changing its school bus definition to make it more similar to NHTSA's. Such an amendment could affect what vehicles can be used for school transportation under State law. For more information about Michigan's proposed amendment, we suggest Mr. Ries contact Mr. Lynas at (517) 373-4013.

NHTSA does not require States to permit only the use of "school buses" when buses are used for school transportation. However, we support State decisions to do so. NHTSA provides recommendations for the States on various operational aspects of school bus and pupil transportation safety programs, in the form of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety," copy enclosed. Since school buses have special safety features that conventional buses do not have, such as padded, high-backed seats, protected fuel tanks, and warning lights and stop arms, they are the safest means to transport school children. Guideline 17 recommends that all buses regularly used for student transportation meet our school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: nht95-4.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 26, 1995

FROM: Carol Stroebel -- Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bart Stupak -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/21/95 LETTER FROM BART STUPAK TO BRENDA BROWN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Stupak:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Kurt B. Ries, concerning our requirements for school vehicles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA re gulates the manufacture of all vehicles, including vans and school buses.

Mr. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium, asks for relief from what he believes is a new Federal regulation. The Northeast Michigan Consortium uses a number of 15-passenger vans to transport students to employment training programs and jo bs. Mr. Ries believes the new Federal regulation will require all vehicles transporting students, including vans, to be replaced with "mini-school buses," which he believes is economically unfeasible.

I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. As explained below, the new regulation that Mr. Ries is concerned about is not a Federal regulation, but one that Michigan is considering adopting as State law.

NHTSA has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under our regulations, a "school bus" is a vehicle carrying 11 or more persons, that is sold to transport children to school or school-related events. Congress has directed NHTSA to require school bus manufacturers to meet safety standards on aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Each seller of a new school bus must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting these safety standards.

While NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses, this agency does not regulate the use of vehicles. Thus, we do not have a present or pending requirement that would require Mr. Ries to cease using his vans for school transportation.

The requirements for the use of school buses and other vehicles are matters for each State to decide. We understand from Mr. Roger Lynas, the State Pupil Transportation Director in Michigan, that Michigan is considering changing its school bus definitio n to make it more similar to NHTSA's. Such an amendment could affect what vehicles can be used for school transportation under State law. For more information about Michigan's proposed amendment, we suggest Mr. Ries contact Mr. Lynas at (517) 373-4013.

NHTSA does not require States to permit only the use of "school buses" when buses are used for school transportation. However, we support State decisions to do so. NHTSA provides recommendations for the States on various operational aspects of school b us and pupil transportation safety programs, in the form of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety," copy enclosed. Since school buses have special safety features that conventional buses do not have, such as padded, high- backed seats, protected fuel tanks, and warning lights and stop arms, they are the safest means to transport school children. Guideline 17 recommends that all buses regularly used for student transportation meet our school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: 18890.jeg

Mr. Meyer Snyder
5134 Bocaw Pl
San Diego, CA 92115-1717

Dear Mr. Snyder:

This responds to your letter asking whether you can have the force of the air bags on your 1995 Toyota Camry "turned down." You asked whether this can be done at your Toyota dealer and, if not, where it could be done, and whether you would have to pay for this modification.

As discussed below, there is no legal impediment to vehicle manufacturers and dealers modifying older vehicles so that they have the same kinds of redesigned air bags being offered on most new vehicles. However, such modifications would likely be very complicated and potentially expensive, and we are not aware of any vehicle manufacturers or dealers which make such modifications. You may wish to ask Toyota about whether it is possible to modify your vehicle in this manner and at what cost.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Manufacturers install air bags in passenger cars as part of complying with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208.

While the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, Federal law limits the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of a design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 U.S.C. 30122).

A manufacturer, dealer or other business which modified the air bags on your 1995 Toyota Camry would not violate the "make inoperative" provision if, after the modification, the vehicle continued to meet the relevant requirements in effect either on the date of manufacture or as later amended. In 1997 NHTSA amended Standard No. 208 to make it easier for manufacturers to quickly redesign their air bags, e.g., by reducing the power as compared to previous years. Compliance with the amended requirements would thus not violate the "make inoperative" provision. As noted earlier, however, the modifications that would need to be made to an existing vehicle so that it would have redesigned air bags would likely be very complicated and potentially expensive, and we are not aware of any vehicle manufacturers or dealers which make such modifications.

I am pleased to hear that you do not want your air bags turned off. The vast majority of persons, including short persons, are much safer with air bags. Among other things, an air bag will minimize the risk of violently striking the steering wheel and dashboard in a moderate to severe crash.

I would also like to point out that there are a few basic steps that you can take to minimize air bag risks, including wearing your safety belts and, when driving, keeping at least 10 inches between the center of the air bag cover and your breastbone. I have enclosed an information brochure, written in the context of making an informed decision about on-off switches, which provides additional information concerning how you can reduce air bag risks.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:208
d.2/3/99

ID: 19437-1.pja

Mr. Robert Douglas
Director of Product Integrity
AmTran Corporation
P.O. Box 6000
Conway, AR 72033

Dear Mr. Douglas:

This responds to your letter to James Jones of our Safety Assurance Office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. Your letter was forwarded to my office because the Office of the Chief Counsel responds to requests for interpretation. AmTran manufactures a school bus with a rear push out window, and you want to know whether the window is large enough to meet the specifications in Standard No. 217. As explained below, your window is not big enough.

From the drawing you enclosed, it appears that the height of the window opening on the interior wall of the bus is about 41.9 centimeters (cm) high. The window is hinged at the top, and when opened the bottom edge swings upward and outward with the assistance of "gas springs." When fully opened, the plane of the window inclines at its outward edge toward the ground at approximately 15 degrees. At the top and bottom of the window, there is a frame that projects toward the interior of the bus, perpendicular to the window surface. As the window rotates open, the interior edge of the frame rotates outward and downward, reducing the window opening by 3.1 cm, to 38.8 cm.

The pertinent part of S5.2.3.1(b)⁽¹⁾ specifies "a push out rear window that provides a minimum opening clearance of 41 centimeters high and 122 centimeters wide  . . .." (emphasis added). We cannot agree with your suggestion that the window opening constitutes the "hole in the body with trim." The words "opening clearance" mean that the exit must meet the clearance specification when the emergency exit window is open. We would measure the exit with the window open during compliance testing because that is the actual opening that would be provided to the passengers in an emergency. The opening needed to comply with the standard must be at least a 41 cm by 122 cm rectangle extending from the interior wall of the bus all the way through to the exterior when the window is opened.

The opening on the rear emergency exit window of your bus is only 38.8 cm high when the window is open, 2.2 cm less than the specified minimum height. Thus, we conclude that your emergency exit window design does not comply with S5.2.3.1(b) of Standard No. 217. The additional fact that you mention, that the window may satisfy the separate requirement of S5.4.2.1(c) involving the passage of the ellipsoid, does not have any bearing on its compliance with S5.2.3.1(b).

I hope that this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:217
d.6/1/99

1. Although your letter referred to S5.2.2.2(b), we assume you meant S5.2.3.1(b), which corresponds to the quotation you included.

ID: 17450.nhf

Mr. Joseph Giletto
Northeastern Equipment
150 Brentwood Drive
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054

Dear Mr. Giletto:

This responds to your inquiry about whether several pieces of construction equipment you intend to import from Italy are motor vehicles that must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Specifically, you intend to import minitransporters, dumpers, selfloading truck mixers, and concrete mixers. You state that the equipment operates on public roads in exceptional circumstances only and is transported by a trailer when moved over public highways. On the basis of the information you provided in your letter and the brochures you enclosed , it appears that the pieces of construction equipment are not motor vehicles. Since you would not be importing motor vehicles, you would not be required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues and enforces the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. 49 USC 30102(a)(6).

Whether NHTSA considers the various pieces of construction equipment to be motor vehicles depends on their use. In the past, we have concluded 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-road use of the equipment is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. Other construction vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the information you provided in your letter and the brochures you enclosed, it appears that the various pieces of construction equipment you intend to import are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the statutory definition. This conclusion is based on the statements in your letter that the construction equipment is loaded onto a trailer when moved between job sites and will be operated at the work-site area only. It is also based on the statement that the equipment will be on the road only when operated at the work-site. Thus, the agency would consider the use of the construction equipment on the public roads to be merely incidental. Since these types of construction equipment are not motor vehicles, they would not be required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If NHTSA were to receive additional information indicating that the construction equipment uses the public roads on more than an incidental basis, the agency would reassess this interpretation.

If you have further questions regarding NHTSA's safety standards, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.6/2/98