ID: 3320o

George F. Ball, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel
General Motors Corporation
New Center One Building
3031 West Grand Boulevard
P.O. Box 33122
Detroit, MI 48232

Dear Mr. Ball:

This responds to your letter seeking our opinion as to whether a new minivan GM plans to introduce (referred to as the GM 200 minivans in your letter) could be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for the purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In your letter, you indicated GM's belief that this new minivan should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it will be constructed on a truck chassis.

Your company has concluded that this minivan will be constructed on a truck chassis for several reasons. First, you state that this chassis has "truck attributes" that make it more suitable for commercial use than a passenger car chassis would be. The examples of such truck attributes set forth in your letter were an integrated ladder-type frame with full-length longitudinal rails and supporting cross-members, an extended width rear axle, a powertrain certified as complying with the light-duty truck emissions standards, and a flat load floor. Second, you state the chassis is a truck chassis because a cargo van version of this vehicle will be marketed and sold for commercial use. Third, you provided an analysis showing that this minivan will have certain chassis and body characteristics similar to those characteristics of minivans that are now produced and classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on its manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe we would classify this vehicle for the purposes of the safety standards. It is important for GM to be aware that these tentative statements of classification are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by GM, and the tentative classifications may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the GM 200 minivan family could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the safety standards, because it will be constructed on a truck chassis. The fact that a cargo van version of the GM 200 will be marketed and sold for commercial use is evidence that the common chassis is a truck chassis. Additionally, the front to rear longitudinal side rails and supporting cross-members that are not present on the A-car chassis shows the GM 200 minivan chassis design is more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operations than the A-car chassis. Finally, the characteristics of the GM 200 chassis appear to be similar to the characteristics of other chassis that have been identified as "truck chassis" by their manufacturers. Accordingly, assuming that your description of the GM 200 chassis is accurate, it appears to us that this minivan is constructed on a truck chassis.

The version of your letter to me that has been placed in the public docket has all the information for which you requested confidential treatment deleted from it.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:571 d:l2/2l/88

ID: 3321o

Bill Whiteside, Subcontract Manager
Harris Corporation
Government Electronics Systems Division
P. O. Box 96000
Melbourne, FL 32902

Dear Mr. Whiteside:

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, as those regulations apply to the certification of certain trailers. Your letter follows an earlier request for interpretation from Telex Communications. In the letter from Telex, your company, Harris Corporation, was identified as Company XYZ. Telex's question was whether it or your company had "ultimate responsibility for DOT certification" pursuant to 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. NHTSA responded to Telex in a letter dated March 1, 1988. Because the information provided in the incoming letter from Telex was somewhat sketchy, and we had to make certain assumptions about whether your company was the end user or intended to resell the trailer, we could not provide a definitive answer to them.

Your letter and a telephone conversation between Larry Little of Harris Corporation and Dorothy Nakama of my staff have given us the following additional information. Your company has a contract with Telex under which Telex is required to deliver trailers to your company. According to your letter, Telex designs, integrates and/or fabricates all "transport related" features of the trailer, including structure, wheels, axles, brakes, running lights, towing package, and other parts. You state that in your specifications, Telex is "required to comply with the Code of Federal Regulations in the design and fabrication of the trailer." After Harris receives a trailer from Telex, other parties in a contractual relationship with Harris permanently mount hardware, such as generators and radio equipment, onto the trailer. You asserted that this additional equipment does not result in exceeding or modifying the GAWR or GVWR of the trailer, which comes from Telex. After the vendors have mounted the hardware onto the trailer, Harris delivers the finished trailer to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) pursuant to a Federal contract with that agency.

My answers to the questions posed in your letter are based on the above understanding of the facts. I will now address the specific questions posed in your letter.

Questions One and Two: Is Telex the complete vehicle manufacturer of this trailer? What process(es) are proper for certification of the trailer?

Response: Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that the trailers delivered to Harris by Telex are "completed vehicles" within the meaning of 49 CFR 568.3. That section defines a "completed vehicle" as:

a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting.

The determination of whether a vehicle meets this definition is made at the time it is delivered to the purchaser. In this case, the vehicles delivered to Harris by Telex are trailers which, according to your letter, already have the body structure, wheels, axles, brakes, lights, towing package, and all other components that are necessary for the trailer to be used as is without any further manufacturing operations. Assuming this is the case, these vehicles are completed vehicles because they do not require any further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function as trailers. Hence, Telex must certify that each of its completed vehicles conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle standards, as specified in 49 CFR 567.4. This certification should appear on the trailer at the time it is delivered to Harris.

However, Telex is not the only party that must certify that the trailers conform to applicable safety standards. Based on the information you have provided, it appears that the parties that permanently mount hardware to these trailers are "alterers," and must affix their own certifications that the trailers conform to all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration, after they have mounted the hardware to the trailer.

Alterers that are required to affix certification labels in accordance with 567.7 are defined in that section as follows:

A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with 567.4 or 567.5, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, ... before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, ... * * * * *

The parties that permanently mount hardware to the trailers delivered by Telex are altering previously certified vehicles before the first purchase of the trailer in good faith for purposes other than resale. The only conditions in which these alterers would not be required to affix their own certification labels to each trailer on which they permanently mount hardware would be:

1. The hardware consisted of "readily attachable components;" or

2. Permanently mounting this hardware is only a "minor finishing operation."

Based on the information you have provided, neither of these exceptions would apply to these parties. Equipment of the sort described in your letter (generators, powerful radio antennas, communications equipment, etc.) are not "readily attachable components." Similarly, the operations performed by these parties appear to be far more sophisticated than "minor finishing operations."

Since the requirements set forth in 49 CFR 567.7 appear to apply to these parties, the parties must make the certification specified in that section. To summarize, alterers must allow the certification labels affixed by the original manufacturer (Telex, in this case) to remain in place and affix their own certification labels in accordance with 567.7. The alterers' certification label must identify the alterer and the month and year in which the alterations were performed, and state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration.

The information you have provided suggests that your company simply purchases the trailers from Telex and delivers the trailers to the two parties to be altered. Assuming that your company does not itself either manufacture or alter these trailers before delivering them to FEMA, your company is not required to make any certification pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567. However, since the parties that are altering the Telex trailers are doing so under contract to Harris, Harris could, if it chooses to do so, assume the certification responsibilities for the parties with whom it has contracted. In that case, Harris would have to affix a certification label in accordance with 567.7 that identifies Harris as the alterer of the trailers.

Question Three: If you rule that Telex has certification responsibility for the trailer, do we have any recourse through your office to enforce certification of the trailer?

Assuming that the facts presented in your letter and our understanding of those facts are correct, Telex must certify that the trailers it delivers comply with all applicable safety standards and each party that has mounted hardware inside the trailer must certify that the trailer complies with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. If you believe that you have information showing that some party has failed to comply with its certification responsibilities or any other requirement in our regulations or safety standards, we would appreciate it if you would forward that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at this address. That office will investigate the matter and take appropriate action.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:567#568 d:12/19/88

ID: 3322o

Mr. Tracy L. Clark, Jr.
Vice President
Cottle Industries
1103 Musser St.
Muscatine, Iowa 52761

Dear Mr. Clark:

Thank you for your letter in which you requested confirmation of your company's status as an alterer of motor vehicles, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567.7. You stated that your company, Cottle Industries, takes a new Honda moped that is certified as complying with all applicable safety standards, removes the plastic body shell and seating components, and adapts the vehicle for the use of wheelchair riders. Now called the Chariot, the modified moped allows the wheelchair bound to gain access to public roads and highways without having to ride in vans. You assert that the Honda front end and drive train components continue to retain their integrity. You enclosed a brochure describing the Chariot.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Based on the facts set forth in your letter, it appears that Cottle Industries would be considered an alterer for the purposes of Part 567, Certification (copy enclosed). Alterers that are required to affix certification labels in accordance with 567.7 are defined in that section as follows:

A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with 567.4 or 567.5, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, ... before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, shall allow the original certification label to remain on the vehicle, and shall affix to the vehicle an additional label of the type and in the manner and form described in 567.4, containing the following information: * * * * *

Cottle Industries does alter previously certified vehicles (the Honda mopeds) before the first purchase of the mopeds in good faith for purposes other than resale. The only conditions in which Cottle would not be required to affix its own certification labels to each moped that it modifies would be:

1. The modifications consisted solely of "readily attachable components;" or

2. The modifications were only "minor finishing operations."

Based on the information you have provided, neither of these exceptions would apply in your company's case. Your company cuts the frame of the Honda moped being modified into two sections and then welds those sections to a new tubular steel frame. This new steel frame for the vehicle is not a "readily attachable component." Similarly, the operations performed by your company on the Honda mopeds appear to be far more sophisticated than "minor finishing operations." Accordingly, Cottle Industries appears to be an alterer subject to the requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. In this case, 567.7 requires that:

(1) The alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards as well as stating the firm or individual name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed (see 567.7(a)); (2) The modified values for the vehicle be provided as specified in 567.4(g)(3) and (5), if the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label (see 567.7(b)); and: (3) The type classification be provided, if the vehicle as altered has a different type of classification from that shown on the original certification.

In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act, and alterers are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

For the purposes of our safety standards, the Chariot would appear to be classified as a "motorcycle." A "motorcycle" is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." I am enclosing a publication entitled "Federal Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures," which indicates those standards that apply to motorcycles. I am also enclosing a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a general description of the applicable regulations, and explains how to get copies of those regulations.

You also indicated that your company plans to leave in place on the altered vehicles the vehicle identification number (VIN) originally assigned by Honda to the vehicles. Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements (49 CFR 571.115) applies to all motorcycles. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 115 provides in part that: "Vehicle alterers, as specified in 49 CFR 567.7, shall utilize the VIN assigned by the original manufacturer of the vehicle." Accordingly, your company as an alterer is required to leave in place the VINs originally assigned by Honda.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:567#115 d:12/19/88

ID: 3323o

Mr. Dana Strahan
City of Orange
Water Department
P. O. Box 449
Orange, CA 92666-1591

Dear Mr. Strahan:

This is in response to your inquiry earlier this year to Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of our Rulemaking Division, in which you asked for information about Federal regulations that apply to the labeling of a vehicle that has been modified to increase its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) above that on the original label. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our certification regulations to you.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

For the purposes of this response, I have assumed that you were concerned about modifying vehicles that are already owned by the City of Orange Water Department. If this is incorrect, and you plan to modify new vehicles before their first sale or your department is in the business of modifying other persons' vehicles, please let me know because different requirements would apply.

Neither the Safety Act nor any of our standards and regulations apply to modifications individual vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Therefore, as a local government agency, the city of Orange, using in-house resources, can perform whatever modifications it desires to its own vehicles. Similarly, our certification regulation does not require modifiers of used vehicles to provide a separate certification label for the modified vehicle. As a word of caution, however, we suggest that any modification made to a vehicle that changes the GVWR assigned by the vehicle's original manufacturer should only be done after the modifier has made a thorough engineering analysis of the entire vehicle. We would suggest that you contact the original vehicle manufacturer for help in making such an analysis.

You also indicated that you were concerned about potential liability that could arise if no additional label were affixed to show the modified vehicle's new GVWR. As explained above, a person modifying his or her own vehicle after its first purchase would not be subject to any potential liability under Federal law. If you are asking for information about potential liability under the laws of the State of California, this agency does not comment on such potential liability. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of California or a local attorney for an opinion about potential liability under California law.

I hope this information proves helpful. Please contact this agency again if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA#567 d:l2/20/88

ID: 3324o

Mr. Donald Smith
Chief Inventor
New Innovative Systems
1047 E. Vernon Road
Philadelphia, PA 19146

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter regarding the "Highway Automatic Communications Indicator (HACI)", as supplemented by a telephone conversation between you and Stephen Wood of my staff on December 20, l988. You have asked for approval of your device.

The HACI "will display, via a transparent display screen mounted in the rear window, pre-programmed distress messages, activated only when with the automobile is at a complete standstill." The diagram of the display alert indicates that the message would appear in the middle of the rear window, rather than at the bottom of the window where the lamp would be. When not activated, the device would be transparent. It would be activated by a special switch, not by the brake pedal. It is our understanding that the HACI would be activated only when the vehicle is stationary, and is not wired into the brake light or hazard light system.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to approve or disapprove individual inventions or devices. We can, however, advise you as to the relationship of the HACI to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under the authority of which the standards are issued. These standards must be met at the time a vehicle is sold to its first purchaser, and persons other than the purchaser may not modify a vehicle after its sale in a manner that, in essence, renders it noncompliant with any standard.

There are three standards potentially affected by the HACI. The first is the lighting standard, Standard No. l08. Since the HACI's display screen is mounted in the rear window, a problem could arise if the center high mounted stop lamp required by Standard No. l08 is also mounted in that area. The HACI is permissible as original vehicle equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the high mounted lamp, or any other lamp required by Standard No. l08. While this determination is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer (or dealer, if the HACI is installed after vehicle manufacture but before sale to its first purchaser) in the first instance, it appears to us that the effectiveness of the high mounted lamp would not be impaired. We base this conclusion on our understanding that the message would appear in the middle of the rear window, instead of at the bottom of the window where the lamp would be and that it would apparently be activated only when the vehicle was stationary, such as parked on the side of the road.

The second standard potentially affected is Standard No. lll, relating to rearview mirrors. This standard specifies a field of view to be met by the inside rearview mirror; if the mirror does not provide this field of view, an outside mirror on the front seat passenger side must be provided. Since your device is reportedly transparent when not activated, and would be activated only when the vehicle is stationary, it may well be that there is no necessity for the addition of an outside mirror. However, we do not have sufficient information to determine whether the HACI would impede the field of view under all conditions.

The third standard potentially affected is Standard No. 205, relating to glazing. This requires, in part, that all glazing in passenger cars have at least 70 percent light transmittance. To the extent that the display screen reduces light transmittance, it could create a noncompliance with this standard. However, because you have indicated that your display screen is transparent, it does not appear likely that any reduction in light transmittance would fall below the specified minimum.

With this guidance and your knowledge of the HACI, you should be able to judge whether installation of the HACI either before or after the initial sale of a passenger car might be regarded as creating a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, or otherwise be in violation of the Act. An official judgment regarding noncompliance or violation is made by the agency only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

In addition, you should be aware that the HACI remains subject to the laws of the individual States. We cannot advise you of its legality under these laws. To obtain an opinion on this matter, you may wish to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:108 d:l2/29/88

ID: 3325o

Mr. Wes Sprunk
Saf-Tee Siping & Grooving, Inc.
l4l80 West 78th, Suite l02
Eden Prairie, MN 55344

Dear Mr. Sprunk:

This responds to your letter concerning the siping of tires. You asked whether "there is any possible problem with the siping of new, used, truck, passenger, or light duty tires," under Department of Transportation regulations. Your question is responded to below, to the extent that it concerns regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We note that your letter indicates that you have also discussed this issue with officials of the Federal Highway Administration.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards.

As noted by your letter, the term "siping" should be distinguished from "grooving." You stated that grooving is a "process of removing rubber from the tire to give it an additional space for water release." You stated that siping is "a process of cross cutting the tread, never deeper than the original tread depth of the tire; and in most cases, l/32" or less, with a fine knife--either four or five cuts to the inch--that does not remove rubber."

Section l08(a)(l) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale, selling or offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States, any item of motor vehicle equipment unless it is in conformity with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The prohibitions of section l08(a)(l) do not apply after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. (Section l08(b)(l).)

NHTSA has issued several safety standards for tires. Standard No. l09 specifies performance and labeling requirements for new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars; Standard No. ll7 specifies performance and labeling requirements for retreaded pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars; and Standard No. ll9 specifies performance and labeling requirements for new pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.

The siping of new tires (including retreaded tires) is permissible only if that operation does not adversely affect the compliance of the tire with Standard No. l09, ll7 or ll9, as applicable. If a dealer offers for sale or sells new tires (including new retreaded tires) that have been siped and those tires do not comply with Standard No. l09, ll7 or ll9, as applicable, the dealer would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $l,000 for each tire that did not comply.

Section l08(a)(2)(A) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, any persons or businesses within the above categories that perform siping should ensure that the siping does not render inoperative the compliance of tires with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You should also be aware that the agency's regulation on regrooved tires (49 CFR Part 569) specifies requirements concerning regrooved tires and regroovable tires which have been siped. See sections 569.7(a)(2)(vii) and 569.7(b).

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:l09#ll7#ll9 d:l2/30/88

ID: 3326o

Mr. C. S. Allen
Commander
Department of California Highway Patrol
P.O. Box 942898
Sacramento, CA 94298-000l

Dear Mr. Allen:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No.l02, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. That standard requires vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions have a starter interlock. You stated that you believe that a vehicle would not meet the standard if it was also equipped with a starter interlock bypass switch. As discussed below, we agree with your position.

According to your letter, the California Highway Patrol has become aware that a school bus manufacturer "has been building vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions which, although equipped with the interlock required by 49 CFR 57l.l02 S3.l.3, are also equipped, at the driver's position, with a momentary contact push-button switch, the purpose of which is to bypass the transmission neutral safety switch." If the driver uses one hand to operate the bypass switch and the other hand to operate the regular starter key-type switch, the bus can be started with the transmission shift lever in a forward or reverse drive position.

You noted that the manufacturer stated its belief that the bypass switch complies with Standard No. l02 since the switch is regarded as "an emergency feature, not intended to be used for routine engine starts." You stated that it is your position that "the bypass switch renders buses equipped with automatic transmissions in violation of FMVSS l02" and that the manufacturer "appears to be interpreting FMVSS l02 as meaning that the starter shall not be capable of being started from the driver's position with the transmission in gear unless the driver intends to do that." Emphasis in original.

Section S3.l.3, which applies only to vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions, reads as follows:

S3.l.3 Starter interlock. The engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

It is our opinion that a vehicle would not meet this requirement if it can be started, when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position, by means of the regular starter key-type switch and a starter interlock bypass switch . In this instance, the engine starter would not be "inoperative." This opinion is not changed by the fact that the manufacturer may intend the bypass switch as an emergency feature, not intended to be used for routine engine starts. The intention of the manufacturer does not change the fact that the engine starter would not be "inoperative," and Standard No. l02 does not provide for any exceptions to this requirement (for covered vehicles).

We are referring your letter to our Office of Enforcement for appropriate action.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel / ref:l02 d:l2/30/88

ID: 3327o

Mr. C. I. Nielsen III
Vice President/General Sales Manager
Wesbar Corporation
Post Office Box 577
West Bend, WI 53095

Dear Mr. Nielsen:

This is in reply to your letter of November ll, l988, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. Specifically, you find unclear the "minimum square inches required of a turn signal lens for a trailer/vehicle, 80" or more in overall with, using a single compartment lamp assembly".

As you stated, the applicable standard is SAE J588e Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970. This standard does not set minimum area requirements per se for turn signal lenses, but it does specify minimum requirements for "effective projected luminous areas" of turn signal lamps. With respect to a single compartment turn signal lamp, section 3.2 of J588e requires this area, when measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of the lamp, to be at least 8 square inches for a rear lamp, and at least 3.5 square inches for a front lamp.

As you are probably aware, on September 9 of this year the agency proposed adopting SAE J1395 APR85 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032mm or More in Overall Width. Its section 5.3.2 requires "the functional lighted lens area of a single lamp" to be at least 75 square centimeters (12 square inches). The agency is currently reviewing the comments received on the proposal.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:l2/30/88

ID: 3328o

Mr. Frank J. Trecy
General Manager - Manufacturing
Miller Structures, Inc.
58120 C. R. 3 South
P. O. Box 1283
Elkhart, Indiana 46515

Dear Mr. Trecy:

I am writing in response to your request for an interpretation of whether Standard No. 115; Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements (49 CFR 571.115) would apply to your company's portable commercial use structures. In your letter to me, you stated that Miller Structures, Inc. manufactures offices, storage buildings, classrooms, laboratories, branch banks, medical clinics, and other related commercial buildings on axles. This allows the structures to be transported to the desired location by attaching them to a truck tractor and moving them over the roads. You state that a "considerable" number of your units go to a location and are placed there permanently. You inform us that other buildings are placed on a location "for varying lengths of time" and are then relocated.

In a subsequent telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my office, you stated that the structures are not self-propelling but must be towed by a semi-trailer or truck. Some of these structures have removable running gears. You also stated that the structures are constructed very much like mobile homes, and that the structures are intended to go on the public roads at least once, in order to get to their designated sites. You also stated that your structures are not regulated by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) because they are not homes.

Standard No. 115, and all of our safety standards, apply only to vehicles that are "motor vehicles," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). The term "motor vehicle" is defined at section 102(3) of the Safety Act as follows:

"Motor vehicle" means any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles, such as mobile construction equipment, that use the public roads only to travel between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site are not considered motor vehicles. In such cases, the use on the public roads is merely incidental, not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle". Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

Based on the information you have provided, it appears that your portable structures are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act and, therefore, are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 115 or any other of our safety standards. This conclusion is based on our judgment that the vehicles seem analogous to mobile construction equipment - i.e., the on-road use of the vehicles appears to be incidental and not the primary purpose for which the vehicles are manufactured. Please note that this conclusion is based solely on the facts presented in your letter. We may reexamine this conclusion if additional information becomes available that would warrant a reexamination.

Additionally, you should note that this interpretation applies only to Federal requirements. The individual States may establish their own identification requirements for vehicles that are not subject to the Federal identification requirements, such as your mobile structures. Thus, the State of South Dakota could establish identification requirements applicable to your mobile structures sold in that State.

I hope the information provided above is useful. If you need further information on this subject, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992 or write to me again.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA#115 d:l2/30/88

ID: 4-15-02 Meier ltr

Mr. Norbert Meier
WIRA Fahrzeug-und Maschinenteile GmbH
Alte Papiermuehle Haemmern 8
D-51688 Wipperfuerth
Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Dear Mr. Meier:

This responds to your e-mail about marking requirements for air brake end fittings in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106).

You explain that your company manufactures compression and push-in end fittings for air brake systems used on commercial vehicles. You indicate that a major truck builder has asked your company to mark the end fittings in accordance with FMVSS No. 106. You ask how you would go about receiving approval to mark your company's products with the "DOT" symbol. You also note that your company does not produce tubing or hoses, just end fittings, and you indicate that the assembly of the fittings with the tubes/hoses is done by the truck or trailer builder.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the United States does not use a certification process similar to that used by the European countries, in which a manufacturer delivers its products to be certified to a governmental entity, and that entity tests the products to determine if they comply with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States, the individual manufacturer of the products is responsible for assuring and certifying that its products meet all applicable U.S. safety standards. After the manufacturer has made the necessary certifications, the products may be sold to the public without any "approvals" or "endorsements" from this agency.

Marking requirements for end fittings are set forth in 49 CFR 571.106, paragraph S7.2.2 (subparagraphs (a) through (d)), copy enclosed. All end fittings, except those that are permanently attached to the hose by crimping or swaging, must be marked. Because the end fittings your company manufactures are not permanently attached, FMVSS No. 106 requires that they be "etched, embossed, or stamped in block capital letters and numerals at least one-sixteenth of an inch high" as described in the following paragraphs.

First, each end fitting must be marked with the symbol "DOT," indicating that the fitting has been certified to meet all applicable FMVSS. (See S7.2.2(a).) Second, the end fitting must be marked with a designation identifying your company as the manufacturer of the fitting ("manufacturer's designation.)" (See S7.2.2(b).) The process for filing a manufacturer's designation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is discussed in greater detail below. Third, each end fitting must be marked with the letter "A" to indicate that it is intended to be used in air brake systems. In addition, if the fitting is intended to be used in a reusable assembly with brake hose specified in Table III of paragraph S7.1 of FMVSS No. 106, then the letter "A" must be followed by a Roman numeral indicating the hose's type (for example, "AI" signifies Type I air brake hose). (See S7.2.2(c).)

Fourth, if the end fitting is intended for use with air brake hose, it must be marked to indicate the nominal inside diameter of the hose, expressed in inches, fractions of inches, or millimeters. If, on the other hand, the fitting is intended for use with plastic air brake tubing, it must be marked to indicate the nominal outside diameter of the tubing, expressed in inches, fractions of inches, or millimeters, followed by the letters "OD." If the nominal inside/outside diameter is expressed in millimeters, the number representing the size must be followed by the designation "mm." (See S7.2.2(d).)

Prior to marking your products to certify compliance with FMVSS No. 106, you must file a manufacturer's designation with this agency at the following address: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Equipment and Imports Division (NSA-32), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. The designation is intended to identify the manufacturer of the end fittings in the event a safety-related defect or noncompliance is determined to exist. There is no standard form for manufacturers to register their designation. Designations may consist of letters, numerals, or a symbol, or any combination of these. If your chosen designation has not been selected previously by another manufacturer, it will be accepted and recorded by NHTSA.

For your information, we also note two procedural requirements that apply to manufacturers headquartered outside the United States. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed). This regulation requires your company to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to the agency within 30 days after it first imports its products into the United States. 49 CFR 566.5, Requirements. This information should also be sent to the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at the address listed above.

The second requirement is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules (copy enclosed). Subpart D of this regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders, and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Office of the Chief Counsel, General Law Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590 and must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;
2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;
3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;
4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;
5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and
6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In closing, we note that the agency has been petitioned to update FMVSS No. 106, including the requirements for end fittings. NHTSA granted the petition and is now evaluating the issues raised therein. If you are interested in reviewing a copy of this petition, you may access it at the following web address: http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=46189&docketid=4367

I hope this information is helpful. In addition to the above, I am also enclosing a manufacturer's information sheet. If you have any questions, please contact Robert Knop of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:106
d.5/13/02