ID: GF007220-2

Louis J. Carlin, Director
Safety Regulations and Consumer Information
General Motors North America
Mail Code: 480 111 S56
30200 Mound Road
Warren, MI 48090-9010




Dear Mr. Carlin:

This concerns your letter dated October 11, 2004, in which you requested an interpretation of certain requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims. We have reconsidered our response dated January 3, 2005 with respect to permissible load identifications.

In your October 11, 2004 letter, you asked whether S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, as amended by the final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration (see 69 FR 31306, June 3, 2004) allows a light truck tire load identification of B, C, D, E, or F on the tire information placard. In our response, we stated that S4.3(i) of FMVSS No. 110 permits only a tire load identification XL or "reinforced". We noted, however, that we were considering petitions for reconsideration asking the agency to permit light truck load identifications of B, C, D, E, or F on tire information placards.

We have reconsidered our previous interpretation. While the agency declined to allow load index numbers on the tire placards (see id. at 31311)

, we decided to allow load identifications of XL and "reinforced". The preamble to the final rule did not elaborate on other load identifications (see id. at 31312).

As you note in your letter, load identifications of B, C, D, E, or F are used for light truck tires to identify load carrying capability in the same way XL is used for passenger car tires to identify extra load carrying capability. In permitting the use of XL for passenger car tires, we stated:

"the agency agrees with petitioners that when the vehicles are equipped with these tires, consumers should be made aware of this information so that they know to replace them with tires capable of holding a similar load. "

In making this change, it was not our intent to allow the load identification for passenger car tires, but prohibit it for light truck tires. Accordingly, while S4.3(i) currently specifies only that a tire load identification XL or "reinforced" may appear on the tire information placard (see id. at 31318), we interpret that section to permit use of the corresponding light truck tire load identifications of B, C, D, E, or F. We intend to make this clear in the regulatory text as part of our response to petitions for reconsideration of the June 3, 2004 final rule.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel
ref:110
d.2/18/05

ID: GF007220

Louis J. Carlin, Director
Safety Regulations and Consumer Information
General Motors North America
Mail Code: 480 111 S56
30200 Mound Road
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Carlin:

This is in response to your letters dated September 23, 2004 and October 11, 2004, in which you requested interpretations of certain requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims. Specifically, you raised certain issues with respect to the content of the tire information placard, and tire normal load requirements.

In your October 11, 2004 letter, you ask whether S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, as amended by the final rule in response to petitions for reconsideration published on June 3, 2004 (69 FR 31306), allows a light truck tire load identification of B, C, D, E, or F on the tire information placard. Our answer is no.

S4.3(i) specifies that only a tire load identification XL or reinforced may appear on the tire information placard (see 69 FR at 31318). No other load identification is allowed. We note, however, that we received several petitions for reconsideration asking the agency to permit load identifications B, C, D, E, or F on tire information placards (see Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17917-6). We are currently considering that request. We expect to issue our response in the near future.

In your September 23, 2004 letter, you ask about a technical correction to the June 3, 2004 final rule. In the correction notice published on August 19, 2004 (69 FR 51399), we amended S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 110. You state that the amendment to S4.2.2 was unnecessary. You ask to confirm which section of FMVSS No. 110 currently specifies the normal load requirements, and what section of FMVSS No. 110 will specify the normal load requirements in the future.

Currently, the normal load requirements apply only to passenger cars. S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 110 specifies normal load limits for passenger cars. Effective June 1, 2007, S4.2.1.2 will specify the normal load limits for passenger cars, and S4.2.2.3 will specify the normal load requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. You are correct to note that the August 19, 2004 document does not affect the date on which multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds will become subject to the normal load requirements. We intend to clarify this issue when we respond to the petitions for reconsideration of the June 3, 2004 final rule.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.1/3/05

ID: GF007509

Mr. Roger J. Davenport
General Highway Products, Inc.
PO Box 596
878 Sussex Blvd.
Broomall, PA 19008




Dear Mr. Davenport:

This responds to your August 26, 2005, letter asking for our analysis of an auxiliary electrical connection to a vehicles braking system, and the potential ramifications associated with the addition of a foreign electrical circuit to a braking system.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

While we are unable to provide you with a technical analysis of your question, we will discuss the Federal laws that can affect your situation.

Your letter describes an electrical device designed for emergency vehicles called 3M Emergency Vehicle Preemption System ("3M device"). The 3M device is installed on emergency vehicles and is used to send a coded infrared signal to the traffic light directly ahead of the emergency vehicle. Upon receiving the signal from the 3M device, the traffic light turns red, except in the direction facing the emergency vehicle. This assists emergency vehicles in safer passage through intersections. Your letter indicates that your customers request that the 3M device be automatically disabled when the parking brake is applied. However, this automatic deactivation feature would require an auxiliary electrical connection to the vehicle braking system.

The auxiliary electrical connection described in your letter is not specifically addressed by the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, if an auxiliary device such as the 3M device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable Federal safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

Further, Federal law also limits the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Specifically, if the 3M device is installed after the first retail sale of the vehicle, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Thus, despite an absence of an express prohibition of auxiliary electrical connections to the braking systems, it is your responsibility to ensure that the installation of the 3M device would not adversely affect the vehicles compliance with any of our safety standards.

We note that because the 3M device described in your letter is designed to be used on a motor vehicle, it is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B), and is subject the recall and remedy provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30120. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Finally, we note that you may wish to contact a private attorney to ascertain any potential State tort law liabilities you may incur as consequence of tampering with the vehicle braking system.

For your convenience we are attaching information materials for vehicle manufacturers. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121
d.12/21/05

ID: GF007547

Mr. Scott Comisar
General Manager
Doran MFG, LLC
2851Massachusetts Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45225

Dear Mr. Comisar:

This responds to your e-mail dated October 17, 2003, asking whether LED red and amber strobing warning lights "are safe to use on school buses."

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. I note that this interpretation does not offer an opinion as to whether your particular lighting system is "safe." However, I will identify the federal regulation applicable to school bus signal lamps.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applicable to school bus signal lamps is FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 108 requires each school bus to be equipped with a system of four red signal (or four red and four amber) lamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J887, July 1964 (a copy is enclosed for your information).

Previously, we were twice asked whether a school bus warning system consisting of LED strobe lights met the requirements of FMVSS No. 108. I enclose copies of our letters in response to those inquiries. You may use these previous interpretations as a guideline for determining whether your LED system could comply with FMVSS No. 108.

We assume that you wish to offer your product as original equipment on school buses. Please note, however, that FMVSS No. 108 also applies to replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. [1] Thus, a manufacturer of both original equipment and replacement LED red and amber strobing warning lights is required to certify that the equipment meets the standards requirements.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.12/4/03





---

[1] See S3(c) of FMVSS No. 108.

ID: GF007569-2

Mr. Robert Strassburger
Vice President, Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your letter asking us to reconsider our May 22, 2003, interpretation letter to Mr. Babcock of Hyundai concerning whether a multi-component rear reflex reflector configuration would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

Table III of Standard No. 108 requires that each passenger car (and certain other specified vehicles) be equipped with 4 red and 2 amber reflex reflectors. Table IV of the standard requires that two red reflex reflectors be located on the rear of the vehicle, one on each side of the vertical centerline, and as far apart as practicable. The applicable photometry requirements for reflex reflectors are incorporated by reference from SAE J594f, "Reflex Reflectors," January 1977.

In our letter to Mr. Babcock, we addressed a rear reflex reflector configuration which consisted of three separate reflex reflectors. One reflector was installed on the fender and a second reflector was located adjacent to it, on the deck lid. The third reflector was hidden by the deck lid and was not visible until the deck lid was raised. No single reflector fulfilled the photometric requirements for a rear reflex reflector, but these requirements were met when the reflector on the fender and either of the other two reflectors were measured.

We explained that this design was not a permissible configuration under Standard No. 108. We stated that the text and setup for testing set forth in SAE J594f clearly indicate that the requirements of this standard apply to a single reflex reflector, and may not be met using a combination of separate reflex reflectors.

In requesting reconsideration, you state that our interpretation is potentially inconsistent with a prior interpretation of Standard No. 108, sent to Mr. Bataini of DBM Reflex Enterprises on July 19, 2000. In that interpretation, we addressed a configuration where side mounted reflective devices were incorporated into a headlamp housing and visible from the side when light is reflected from them. We stated that the relevant question was "whether Standard No. 108 permits a front side marker reflector to consist of two reflective devices molded separately and assembled on the same housing." We concluded that the answer is yes, provided that when assembled they meet the requirements of SAE Standard J594f.

You suggest that the standard should be interpreted to "permit a reflex reflector to consist of two (or more) reflective devices molded separately and installed on a single, rigid part of the vehicle (such as the fender or bumper) as long as the devices are mounted closely enough together that they meet the test requirements of SAE J594f." You noted that SAE J594f allows reflex reflectors to "have any linear or area dimensions," as long as the photometric performance is met with a specified maximum projected area contained within a 10 inch diameter circle.

We are pleased to clarify Standard No. 108s requirements for reflex reflectors. After considering your letter, it continues to be our opinion that for each reflex reflector required by the standard, all of the standards requirements for that reflex reflector must be met by a single reflex reflector.

We interpret the word "reflector" to refer to a single reflector, that must fully comply on its own. In other situations where Standard No. 108 allows the requirements for an item of lighting equipment to be satisfied by more than one item, it explicitly says so. See, e.g., section 3.1 of SAE J585e (tail lamps), section 5.1.5.2 of SAE J586 (stop lamps), and section 5.1.5.2 of SAE J588 (turn signal lamps). (These SAE recommended practices are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.)

We do not believe there is any inconsistency between our letters to Mr. Babcock and Mr. Bataini. In our letter to Mr. Bataini, we addressed the issue of "whether Standard No. 108 permits a front side marker reflector to consist of two reflective devices molded separately and assembled on the same [headlamp] housing."(Emphasis added.) We were not addressing the issue of multiple reflectors.

We note that Standard No. 108 does not specify that all of the reflective elements of a reflex reflector need to be contiguous. Our view when we issued the letter to Mr. Bataini was that whether the reflective elements of the reflex reflector were molded to each other and then mounted on a headlamp housing, or instead separately mounted on the headlamp housing, the finished product was a single item (both a single reflector and a combination lamp). By contrast, multiple unconnected reflective devices installed on the vehicles fender or bumper would not constitute a single reflector.

Finally, we note that the use of multiple reflectors in place of a required single reflector would not only raise testing issues but also concerns related to replacement of broken reflectors. Standard No. 108 specifies requirements only for single reflectors. If a vehicle manufacturer used multiple reflectors in place of a single reflector, there would be no way of knowing the apportioned contribution of each of the separate reflectors. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for an aftermarket manufacturer to supply parts that have the same reflectivity as the original parts, and there would be certification problems for these manufacturers. Therefore, if one of the separate reflectors became broken and the vehicle owner replaced it (but not all of the reflectors), the vehicle might not provide the minimum required performance in this area.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/14/04

ID: GF007705

[ ]

Dear Mr. [ ]:

This responds to your letter of October 7, 2003, regarding certain trailer lighting requirements. You intend to install a set of two lamps at the top rear corners of the trailer. The outer-most lamp would have a dual function of a clearance lamp, and an "auxiliary" turn signal lamp. The horizontally adjacent (inboard) lamp would function as an "auxiliary" stop lamp and, possibly, as a second clearance lamp. [1] You ask whether such a lamp configuration is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108. Further, you are aware that FMVSS No. 108 limits the number of rear identification lamps to three. You ask at what horizontal distance from these identification lamps would supplemental lamps be deemed "auxiliary" and not a part of this identification lamp cluster.

Before I address your questions, I note that you requested confidential treatment for the identity of your company and for yourself. I agree to keep your name and the name of your company confidential. All information in bold brackets [      ] will be kept confidential from the public. Your incoming interpretation request will be redacted before being made publicly available.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

With respect to your first question, the dual function "auxiliary" lamps described in you letter are permissible under FMVSS No. 108 with certain limitations. First, Table II of FMVSS No. 108 requires that the rear clearance lamps be red. Accordingly, the outer-most clearance lamp (that will also function as a turn signal lamp) must be red. Second, the stop lamp that is adjacent to the clearance/turn signal lamp, cannot also function as an additional clearance lamp, because Table II of FMVSS No. 108 requires that clearance lamps indicate the overall width of the vehicle. Accordingly, only the outer-most turn signal lamp can function as a clearance lamp, because it is the outermost lamp that indicates the overall width of the vehicle. We note, however, that it would be permissible for the adjacent inboard lamp to have a dual function of an auxiliary stop lamp and an auxiliary tail lamp.

In response to your second question, Table II of FMVSS No. 108 provides precise guidance for the location of the five lamps that are required at the top rear of the trailer. Specifically, Table II requires that the three identification lamps be located as close as practicable to the top and center of the trailer, spaced between 6 and 12 inches apart. Similarly, Table II requires that the two clearance lamps be located as close as practicable to the top of the trailer and as close to the edges as would be necessary to indicate the overall width of the trailer.

While the location of auxiliary lighting on the top rear of the trailer is not regulated by FMVSS No. 108, S5.1.3 of the standard does prohibit installation of lamps that would impair the effectiveness of required lighting. Therefore, your auxiliary lamps must be located far enough away from the three identification lamps, that they do not impair their effectiveness. In a recent interpretation letter, the agency stated that the function of this three-lamp identification cluster is to indicate the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway. The agency has long maintained that highway traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with established lighting schemes, which facilitates their ability to instantly recognize the meaning the lamps convey and respond accordingly. Therefore, any auxiliary lighting on the top rear of the trailer must be located such that it would not interfere or be confused with the three-lamp identification cluster.

After studying your diagrams, it appears that your auxiliary lamps would not impair the effectiveness of the required three-lamp identification cluster. The three-lamp identification cluster is located at the top center of the trailer. By contrast, your two auxiliary lights are located toward the edges of the trailer, adjacent to the clearance lamps. Thus, your rear lighting configuration would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. [2]

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.1/21/04





---

[1] You have enclosed drawings and a description of two versions of a rear lighting configuration. In one of the two versions, the lamps adjacent to the outer-most turn signal supplemental lamp also functions as a second clearance lamp.

[2] You may also want to review our Interpretive Rule on the proper location of identification lamps and clearance lamps, which NHTSA published on April 5, 1999 (64 FR 16358). A copy is attached.

ID: GF007915

Mr. Derek Dean
ACDelco
2506 Frederick Drive
Conway, AK 72034

Dear Mr. Dean:

This responds to your e-mail regarding various issues related to aftermarket brake pads. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

First, you ask about Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to brake pads on new vehicles, as well as aftermarket brake pads. There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) specifically applicable to new brake pads. Instead, several FMVSSs regulate entire brake systems. Specifically, Standards No. 105, 121, 122, and 135 regulate brake systems for various types of motor vehicles. Vehicle manufacturers are responsible for certifying that their vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSSs, including relevant brake system requirements. Accordingly, brake pad manufacturers are not directly responsible for any certification requirements.

Although NHTSA does not directly regulate brake pads, any brake pad designed to be used on a motor vehicle is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" and is subject to the notification and remedy (recall) provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Thus, defective aftermarket brake pads could be subject to our recall provisions.

In you letter, you discuss the obligations of repair businesses. Although our regulations do not address brake pad replacement procedures, we note that states may regulate repair businesses and how they perform their work.

In your letter, you ask about NHTSA research related to brake quality and causation of rear impact crashes, and about complaints pertaining to poorly performing brake pads. We note that NHTSA conducts various research projects related to braking performance, and our Office of Defects Investigations maintains a publicly accessible database of complaints filed with NHTSA. We suggest that you visit our web site at www.NHTSA.gov, where you may be able to find helpful information pertaining to your questions.

Finally, you ask for our opinion on the "D3EA certification that GM has voluntarily adopted for use on DuraStop our Aftermarket Brake line to help ensure our brake parts do indeed keep the vehicle in compliance with the FMVSS". As discussed above, NHTSA does not provide approvals or endorsement for motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:105
d.1/3/05

ID: GF007935

Terence McBride, Manager
City of Memphis Motor Vehicle Inspection Bureau
590 Washington Avenue
Memphis, TN 38015

Dear Mr. McBride:

This responds to your e-mail of November 4, 2003, to George Feygin of my staff. In your e-mail, you inform us that the State of Tennessee has passed a bill (No. HB1819/SB1765) permitting oscillating stop lamps on motorcycles. You ask whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) permit oscillating stop lamps on motorcycles. As discussed below, the answer is no.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements prior to the initial sale of the vehicle.

The Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment in motorcycles is FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. The relevant section of that standard reads as follows:

"S5.5.10      The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:
(a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b) Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;
(c) A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;
(d) All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning" [emphasis added].

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 mandates that all lamps be steady burning, unless otherwise permitted. In the present case, stop lamps do not fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10 (a) through (c). Accordingly, motorcycle stop lamps must be steady burning and cannot be oscillating.

With respect to Federal preemption of State laws, 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1) provides in pertinent part:

"Preemption. When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter"

This means that, under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), a State cannot authorize oscillating motorcycle stop lamps since the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard prohibits such lighting devices.

We further note that installation of a non-steady burning lamp by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business after the initial sale is subject to the restrictions of 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Depending on the circumstances, installation of a non-steady burning lamp after the initial sale of the motorcycle could be viewed as a violation of this "make inoperative" provision.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/14/04

ID: GF007944

The Honorable Russell D. Feingold
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-4904

Dear Senator Feingold:

Thank you for your October 7, 2004, letter on behalf of your constituent regarding bumper and lighting regulations. Specifically, your constituent is concerned about vehicle compatibility and the height of bumpers and lamps on certain vehicles. I appreciate the opportunity to address your constituents concerns.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues standards and regulations applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA regulates bumpers on passenger cars (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 581), but not on multipurpose passenger vehicles (sport utility vehicles), because such regulation could significantly reduce their utility. For vehicles subject to our bumper standards, the bumper must be located at the height of not more than 20 inches above ground.

We note that the agency is very concerned with vehicle compatibility in multi-vehicle crashes. Bumper height is one of the factors affecting vehicle compatibility. In June of 2003, NHTSA published a report describing the scope of the safety problem represented by vehicle incompatibility and outlined strategies the agency plans to pursue in improving vehicle compatibility. See http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-11/aggressivity/IPTVehicleCompatibilityReport/. We have enclosed a copy of the report for your information. Currently, NHTSA and its global partners are conducting research to determine the best regulatory approaches in the area of vehicle compatibility. NHTSA is also working with vehicle manufacturers to minimize the effects of vehicle incompatibility and to develop consumer information related to this issue.

With respect to headlamp location, the Federal lighting standard (49 CFR 571.108) requires that the headlamps for all new vehicles be located between 22 inches and 54 inches above the road surface. Subsequent reinstallation of headlamps at a different height by a dealer or a repair business is also prohibited.

We note that the bumper and headlamp height issues raised by your constituent may not be the product of improper installation of those items, but instead may stem from raising or otherwise altering the vehicle suspension system. While this agency does not regulate suspension alterations, some states may do so. Accordingly, we suggest that your constituent contact the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Office of General Counsel at (608) 266-8810 or ogc.exec@dot.state.wi.us to ascertain Wisconsin regulations pertaining to vehicles suspension systems, bumper height, and lighting.

If you or your constituent have any further questions regarding this issue, you may contact Scott Brenner, Associate Administrator for External Affairs, at (202) 366-2566.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:581#108
d.11/19/04

ID: GF007988

Ms. Amy Homan
Crown Energy Technologies, Inc.
3111 Shepard Place S.E.,
Calgary, Alberta
CANADA T2C 4P1

Dear Ms. Homan:

This responds to your October 21, 2004, e-mail to George Feygin of my staff. You ask whether two oilfield equipment rigs manufactured by your company would be classified as "motor vehicles" and subject to the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air brake systems.

Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) 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."

NHTSA has issued several interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. , airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.

In the present case, the information you have provided describes two oilfield equipment rigs designed to service oil and gas wells. One is a tandem/tandem, which has four axles; the front two axles are steer axles. This units GVWR is 95,600 pounds. The second is a tandem/tridem, which has five axles; the front two axles are steer axles. This units GVWR is 120,600 pounds. Your letter indicates that these rigs travel on local roads and interstate highways between well locations. The period of time a rig spends at a single location varies depending on the end-user. You indicated that the rigs may be required to stay on a lease for a day, a week or a month at a time.

The vehicles you ask about appear similar to items of mobile construction equipment which are not considered motor vehicles. Given this similarity and the limited usage you describe, we believe that the vehicles are not "motor vehicles" subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions please contact Mr. George Feygin at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures

ref:571
d.2/2/05