ID: 14261.drn

Timothy D. McDonnell, Esq.
Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
Trailmobile Corporation
Amoco Building, Suite 6820
200 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, IL 60601

Dear Mr. McDonnell:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a world manufacturer identifier (WMI) assigned to Pullman Trailmobile can continue to be used after Pullman was sold to Trailmobile Corporation, which changed Pullman's name to Trailmobile Trailer Corporation (TTC). Under the facts described below, TTC may continue to use the WMI originally assigned to Pullman.

Your letter states that Pullman Trailmobile, a predecessor of TTC, was assigned the WMI "1PT." In 1991, TTC (as Pullman Trailmobile) was sold to Trailmobile Corporation. Today, TTC is still a division of Trailmobile, and manufactures trailers.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that Trailmobile is a holding company, does not manufacture motor vehicles, and is not assigned a WMI. You stated that Trailmobile does not intend to merge TTC into Trailmobile, but to keep TTC as a separate division, and to advertise Trailmobile Trailers Corporation as a trade name. You also stated that Trailmobile will continue to be responsible for trailers manufactured in the past with the WMI "1PT."

NHTSA's regulation at 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements states that the WMI shall "uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually." (49 CFR section 565.6(a)) In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has interpreted "uniquely identify" to mean that the same WMI cannot be used for two corporate entities if there is a possibility the two entities will be confused.

The facts of your case are similar to those in a March 20, 1997 letter to Monaco Corporation (copy enclosed). As was the case in Monaco, in your case, no WMI is assigned to the parent company (Trailmobile), but a division (TTC) has a WMI. NHTSA was assured in the Monaco case that there are no plans for the parent company, Monaco, to manufacture motor vehicles (which would require assigning a WMI). Similarly, you assure us that since it is a holding company, Trailmobile Corporation itself will not manufacture motor vehicles. You have also assured us that TTC will remain a separate division, and advertised as a trade name.

Because the relevant facts in your case and Monaco's are the same, we arrive at the same decision in your case as we did in Monaco's. Since Trailmobile itself is not assigned a WMI, but its division, TTC has a WMI, we agree that TTC may continue to use the WMI that was assigned to Pullman. Under the facts described, there would be no confusion as to which corporate entity manufactured the motor vehicle.

A copy of this letter will be sent to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), which has a contract to administer the WMI system for NHTSA. The SAE will make appropriate notations in its records about Trailmobile Corporation and TTC, and may contact you if it needs further information.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure

cc: Ms. Cathy Douds
Society of Automotive Engineers
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096

(Please enclose copy of incoming letter to Ms. Douds also)

ref:565
NCC-20:DNakama:mar:apr/18/97:62992
[U:\NCC20\INTERP\565\14261.DRN]
Interps: Part 565, Redbook (2)
cc: NCC-20, Subj/chron, DN, NPS, NSA

ID: 14270.wkm

Arthur N. Arschin, Esq.
Attorney at Law
450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2803
New York, NY 10123

Dear Mr. Arschin:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter requesting DOT identification numbers for Union Autoparts Manufacturing Company, Ltd.(Union). Please be advised that Union is not required to have a DOT identification number, as discussed below.

You stated that Union, a Thailand company, manufactures steel wheel rims for motorcycles and bicycles, as well as steel spokes and steel nipples for motorcycle and bicycle tires. Union wants to export some of its wheel rims and parts to the U.S. and for that purpose, wants to obtain DOT identification numbers for their rims. You further stated that Union's motorcycle rims bear the words "Union Cycle" on the weather side, and that bicycle rims are marked "UAB." Finally, you stated that you have been designated Union's resident agent in the U.S. for the service of process.

Unless equipped with a motor, bicycles and bicycle equipment are not covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, a DOT identification number is not necessary for importation and sale of bicycles and related equipment. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued regulations relating to bicycles, however, which can be found at 16 CFR 1512, including requirements for tires (1512.10), wheels (1512.11), and wheel hubs (1512.13).

With respect to motorcycle rims, paragraph S5.2 of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.120), specifies rim marking requirements applicable to all rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Subparagraph (d) requires rims to be marked with "A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol." This information allows this agency and the public to identify the manufacturer of the rim should the need arise. The use of a trademark or symbol instead of the manufacturer's name is permitted because the agency can determine the identity of the manufacturer from the trademark or symbol. Domestic manufacturers' trademarks and symbols are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Foreign manufacturers are required by 49 CFR 551.45 to include in their resident agent designations a list of the "marks, trade names, or other designations of origin" that appear on any of their products in lieu of their legal names. Thus, the assignment of an individual DOT identification code, as the agency does for tire manufacturers, is not required for rim manufacturers. In that respect, Union's continued use of "Union Cycle" and "UAB" is acceptable.

It should be noted, however, that in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed), if it has not already done so, Union will be required to provide NHTSA the information called for therein.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:120

d.9/22/97

ID: 14280.jeg

Mr. Bob Van Hazelen
Fleet and Building Manager
Public Works Department
City of Burbank
124 South Lake Street
P.O. Box 6459
Burbank, CA 91510-6459

Dear Mr. Van Hazelen:

This responds to your letter, on behalf of the Police Department of the City of Burbank, requesting a "formal written passenger air bag deactivation waiver." The Department requested deactivation of the passenger side air bag and the removal of the passenger side seat in two Ford Crown Victoria police patrol vehicles. According to your letter, computers will be mounted in the deployment area of the passenger air bag, and the front passenger seats will be removed. As explained below, this type of modification would be permitted under Federal law. Therefore, you do not need an "air bag deactivation waiver."

Some background information about our agency may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Among the standards that NHTSA has issued are two which could be affected by the modification you propose: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, (49 CFR 571.207), which requires each vehicle to have an occupant seat for the driver and sets strength and other performance requirements for all occupant seats in a vehicle, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle.

If your contemplated modification is made before a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, 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 (See 49 CFR Part 567.7). Once the front passenger seat is removed, Standard No. 208 would not require an air bag for that location since an occupant restraint is only required if a seating position is there.

Federal law also limits the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may not "knowingly make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

NHTSA does not consider there to be a violation of the "make inoperative" prohibition with respect to occupant restraints if, after one of the named types of commercial entities modifies a used vehicle, the vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints at every seating position and those occupant restraints are the type that Standard No. 208 permitted when the vehicle was new.

Again, if a seating position were removed from a used vehicle, the removal of the air bag as well would not violate the make inoperative provision because the presence of the air bag was originally premised on the presence of the seating position.

However, the make inoperative prohibition would be violated if removal of the passenger side air bag caused the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy. I would like to caution you to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Removing an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the mechanic. In addition, removal of the passenger side air bag could cause the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy.

I note that the "make inoperative" prohibition applies only to the named entities. Therefore, vehicle owners are permitted to make any modifications to their vehicles, even if the vehicle would no longer comply with applicable safety standards.

I also note that S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. NHTSA believes that most manufacturers install one indicator for both air bags. After the passenger side air bag is removed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. NHTSA is concerned that the driver would then be unable to tell if the driver side air bag were functional. Therefore, I urge you to contact the manufacturer to determine how the indicator could be altered to monitor the readiness of the driver side air bag only.

As a final caution, I note that the purpose of the "make inoperative" provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of the vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. It is our understanding that it is common for police cars to be sold after a few years of service. Presumably any police equipment would be removed before such a sale. I urge you to either reinstall the passenger seat and occupant restraint or to make these modifications in a way that will discourage reinstallation of the passenger seat, so that future users of the vehicle are unlikely to use a seating position that does not have any occupant restraint.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#207#208
d:5/29/97

ID: 14285.mls

Mr. Ken Bratlie
President
Columbia Corporation
5775 NW Wagon Way
Hillsboro, OR 97124-8531

Dear Mr. Bratlie:

This responds to your inquiry about whether two types of "trailer tippers" (a "Woods Products Trailer Tipper" and a "Landfill Trailer Tipper") are motor vehicles that would have to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A trailer tipper is used to empty the contents from a semitrailer onto the ground by elevating (tipping) one end of the trailer and pouring the content out the other end. You state that each trailer tipper stays at an off-road work site, such as a mill or a landfill, the majority of its life and is infrequently transported over public roads between job sites.

As way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets and enforces the laws under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) are promulgated. NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"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."

Whether the agency considers your trailer tippers to be motor vehicles depends on their use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the available information, it appears that your trailer tippers are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the statutory definition. This conclusion is based on your statements in your letter that the trailer tippers typically spend extended periods of time at a single site and only use the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of the trailer tippers on the public roads to be incidental and not their primary purpose. Since your trailer tippers are not motor vehicles, they would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Accordingly, the trailer tippers would not be required to be equipped with antilock brake systems.

If NHTSA were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer tippers used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. If the agency were to determine that your trailer tippers are motor vehicles, then they would have to comply with the applicable Standards, including Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which addresses conspicuity, Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, if the trailer tipper were a motor vehicle, while it would not be required to be equipped with brakes, if it is equipped with hydraulic brakes, then you would need to use brake hoses and brake fluids that comply with Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, and Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. Please note that trailers equipped with air brakes are required to comply with Standard No. 106 and Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

In addition, if your trailers were motor vehicles, you, as a motor vehicle manufacturer, would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. This certification procedure is set out in 49 CFR Part 567.

Please note that since a State may require an off-road vehicle to be registered, you may wish to contact the States in which your trailer tippers are used about any such requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d:5/6/97

ID: 14305a.mls

Mr. Frank Johnson
Executive Vice President
Nichirin Co., Ltd.
139 Copernicus Blvd.
Brantford, Ontario
N3P 1N4

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, asking about Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, for vacuum brake hoses. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I apologize for the delay in the agency's response.

According to your letter, your company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nichirin Co. Ltd. Japan. Your company manufactures and sells vacuum brake hoses and assemblies to vehicle manufacturers, including Honda.

You state that the "current registered trademark" (which we understand to be the manufacturer's designation required by S9.1 of Standard 106) that is imprinted on one brake hose end fitting is "NNI." The hose is marked "NCRN," which is the designation registered with NHTSA for your parent company. You are currently supplying vacuum brake hoses to Honda that are manufactured in Japan with the NCRN designation. In the future, you plan to have the bulk hose "licensed to a USA based hose manufacturer who [you] will buy it from, assemble valves, clips, etc. and supply it to Honda."

You first ask whether you need to register a designation for vacuum brake hose assemblies under S9.1.3 of Standard 106, even though you have "NNI" registered for hydraulic brake hose assemblies. The answer is no. Because you already are registered for hydraulic brake hose assemblies, you do not need to register again with NHTSA. The purpose of registering your designation with the agency is to help us identify you in case of a recall resulting from a safety-related defect or a noncompliance. Please note that we have examined a sample product you submitted which does not appear to be a "brake hose assembly" as defined in Standard No. 106 because it has clamps only, and no end fittings. Therefore, it is not required to be labeled in accordance with S9.1.3 of Standard No. 106.

You then ask whether you or the licensee would be considered the manufacturer of the hose for purposes of registering the manufacturer's designation. You note that the hose is to be manufactured under license to your material and manufacturing specifications. I have enclosed a May 12, 1994 letter to Russell Performance Products which addresses the same issue. As the agency explained in that interpretation, only the licensee's designation is required to be marked, since the licensee is the entity that will actually manufacture the brake hose. Such a designation will identify the licensee as the manufacturer of the brake hose in the event of a possible defect or noncompliance with the hose.

Please note that HBD Industries (HBD), the proposed licensee, has not registered a designation with the agency. Therefore, HBD should file its planned designation with NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

I have also enclosed copies of two procedural requirements you must satisfy in order to sell your products in this country. The first requirement is NHTSA's regulation for manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566). This regulation requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufacturers to NHTSA within 30 days after it first imports its products into the United States.

The second requirement is NHTSA's regulation for designations of agents (49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D). The regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of 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 me at the following address: Chief Counsel, Room 5219, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. The designation 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 agency appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation; and,
6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.
7. In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:106
d:5/6/97

ID: 14307.ztv

Mr. Tadashi Suzuki
Manager
Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Service
Stanley Electric Col, Ltd2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of March 10, 1997, asking for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to the effective projected luminous area of stop lamps and turn signal lamps.

Paragraph S5.1.1.25 states that "[e]ach turn signal lamp on a motorcycle manufactured on and after January 1, 1973, shall have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 3 1/2 square inches." Your interpretation is "Turn signal lamp on a motorcycle shall have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 3 1/2 square inches." (S5.1.1.25). Your understanding of this requirement is correct.

Section 5.3.2 of SAE J586 FEB84 Stop Lamps For Use on Motor Vehicles Less than 2032MM in Overall Width, specifies that "the functional lighted lens area of a single compartment lamp shall be at least 37.5 square centimeters." Your interpretation is that the "stop lamp on a motorcycle shall have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 37.5 square centimeters (SAE J586 FEB84)." This is not correct. Although SAE J586 FEB84 has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108 by paragraph S5.1.1, section 5.3.2 of SAE J586 FEB84 does not apply. Paragraph S5.1.1 allows exceptions to SAE J586 FEB84, and the applicable provisions for motorcycle stop lamps are set forth in two paragraphs under S5.1.1: paragraphs S5.1.1.22 and paragraph S5.1.1.26(a).

Under these two paragraphs, if a motorcycle is a motor driven cycle (i.e., one with an engine developing 5 brake horsepower or less) and if its speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less, it may be equipped with a stop lamp whose effective projected luminous lens area is not less than 3 1/2 square inches (S5.1.1.22). Otherwise, a motorcycle must be equipped with at least one single compartment stop lamp whose functional lighted lens area is not less than 50 square centimeters. The terms "effective projected luminous lens area," "effective projected luminous area," and "functional lighted lens area" are used interchangeably in Standard No. 108.

You also ask for confirmation that "[t]he functional lighted lens area of a single compartment stop lamp, and a single compartment rear turn signal lamp on a motor vehicle (other than motorcycle) whose overall width is less than 80 inches, shall be not less than 50 square centimeters. (S5.1.1.26)." This is correct, except that paragraph S5.1.1.26(a) applies to motorcycles as well as to other vehicles.

If you have any further questions about this letter, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (FAX 202-366-3820).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:4/21/97

ID: 14308.drn

Robert M. Kampfer, Esq.
Attorney at Law
Strain Building, Suite 613
P. O. Box 1946
Great Falls, MT 59403-1946

Dear Mr. Kampfer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your client, which intends to transport adults and children to and from activities at a church camp, must purchase a school bus. Since the camp appears to be neither a school nor school-related, NHTSA does not consider the vehicles used to transport the children to be school buses. However, state law determines vehicle use, so Montana's laws determine the answer to your question.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new bus that does not meet all Federal school bus safety standards if that person is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for purposes that include transporting students to and from "school or school-related events." Whether your client must be sold school buses depends on whether the camp is considered a "school or school-related event."

For the following reasons, NHTSA does not consider the camp to be a "school." To determine whether the church camp is a school, the agency looks at whether the function of the facility is primarily educational or custodial in nature. In describing the camp's activities, your letter states: "There is no particular schooling involved as such, but the camp does include various religious and recreational activities." In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you confirmed that the camp offers outdoor recreational activities and religious instruction, but offers no "academic education." Since you have indicated that academic instruction is not provided, it does not appear that the church camp is a school.

As to whether the church camp is a school-related event, the agency looks at the overall relationship between the program and the schools from which children are being transported to attend the program. Since the camp is not related to a school, NHTSA would not consider the camp to be a "school-related event."

Under Federal law, your client need not be sold school buses. However, each State has the authority to regulate the use of vehicles within its jurisdiction. Since the individual States have authority over the use of vehicles, you must look to the State law of your client's camp to determine if the camp may use vans to transport children.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#571.3
d:6/2/97

ID: 14309.ztv

Mr. Kiyoshi Narabu
General Manager
Technical Department
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.
80 Itado, Isehara-City
Kanagawa, 259-11 Japan

Dear Mr. Narabu:

This responds to your letter of March 7, 1997, with reference to paragraph S7.7(e) of Standard No. 108 requiring permanent markings of ballasts used in high intensity discharge headlamps.

You have enclosed samples of labels to be stuck to ballasts and a sample of a plate to which the label is affixed, and ask whether these are "permanent" markings within the meaning of the standard.

We were able to peel back and remove in an undamaged condition the label on the sample plate that you enclosed. Therefore, it does not meet the requirement of paragraph S7.7(e) that the markings be permanent. We regard marking by labels as "permanent" if the labels cannot be removed without their destruction.

We note that the marking itself is in the Japanese language. We are unable to tell whether the marking conforms with the warning and other information required on ballast markings by the remainder of paragraph S7.7(e). Thus, the label must also be in the English language to comply fully with the requirements of this paragraph.

If you have further questions about this letter, you may FAX them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-3820).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:5/22/97

ID: 14385a.ogm

Mr. Paul Wagner
President
Bornemann Products Incorporated
402 Industrial Drive
P.O. Box 427
Bremen, IN 46506

Dear Mr. Wagner:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, as it applies to a seat design having a reclining mechanism and an upper seat belt anchorage integrated into the seat. I apologize for the delay in responding.

Confirming your understanding, Standard 207 applies to an integrated seat "as currently provided." The integrated seat must meet the general performance requirements of S4.2, the requirements of S4.2.1 for seat adjusters, and unless excepted, the requirements in S4.3 for a restraining device for hinged or folding seats or seat backs.

You are concerned that a reclining mechanism on an integrated seat that adjusts only for comfort would not be adequately evaluated under Standard 207. The seat would be excluded from S4.3 under the terms of that section because it would be "a seat having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants." While the seat would be subject to the general performance requirements of S4.2, you state that the test procedure is inadequate for the recliner because much of the load placed on the seat and seat belt anchorage would be absorbed by the side struts described in S5. You state: "In real life, an integrated seat may experience movement from one adjustment position to another, as in a change in detent of the seat recliner due to the shearing of the recliner's teeth, but yet in the lab scenario, still comply with the test requirements in Standard No. 207."

The exclusion from S4.3 for seat backs which adjust only for the occupant's comfort is very limited. If a seat back also adjusts for any other reason, i.e. to allow access to other areas of the vehicle or to provide additional range of adjustment for seat belts, the seat would be required to have a restraining device which meets S4.3.

I also would like to take this opportunity to respond to your comment that a seat may experience movement from one adjustment position to another and still comply with Standard 207's requirements. As S4.2.1 applies to adjustment of the seat back as well as the seat itself, the seat back of an integrated seat with a reclining mechanism must remain in its adjusted position when tested under the procedures outlined in S5.

We also note that your letter suggests establishing test procedures for integrated seats. NHTSA is currently studying possible changes to Standard No. 207 as well as the October 28, 1997 petition for rulemaking submitted by your company.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke at this address or by phone at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:207
d.3/5/98

ID: 14386.drn

Mr. Ronald J. Hemmer
Engineering Manager
DuraTech
P. O. Box 1940
Jamestown, ND 58402-1940

Dear Mr. Hemmer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your company's mobile industrial tub grinders must be assigned vehicle identification numbers (VIN) pursuant to 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter stated that your company was asked to provide your "World Manufacturer Identification (WMI) Code." The WMI is the first three digits of a VIN and identifies a motor vehicle manufacturer. Your letter emphasizes that the grinders "are not used on the highway for commercial purposes." The grinders are mobile to facilitate towing from DuraTech to the buyer, which "may then use the highway system to get the machine from one jobsite to another." You enclosed six brochures, each describing a different model of an industrial tub grinder. The brochures describe the grinders as used for grinding timber and debris ranging from (depending on the model) tree limbs and yard waste, to large trees, construction debris, tires and demolition lumber.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the length of time a grinder is at a job site depends on the task. The grinder could be at a tire dump or construction site for months at a time. You stated that the grinders very rarely stay at a job site for less than a week.

NHTSA's VIN requirement (49 CFR Part 565) applies only to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). That section defines "motor vehicle" as:

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

Whether the agency considers your grinders to be motor vehicles depends on their use. The statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on your description, it appears that your company's grinders are not motor vehicles. This is because the grinders stay on job sites for extended periods of time (usually for months) and only use the highway to move from site to site. Therefore, your grinders need not be assigned VINs pursuant to 49 CFR Part 565. I note that, if the agency were to receive additional information indicating that the grinders use the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation.

Please note that since a State may require equipment such as your grinders to be registered, you may wish to contact the States about the status of your grinder in that State.

You also informed Ms. Nakama over the telephone that the Canadian government would require your grinders to be assigned VINs for sale in Canada. NHTSA and the Canadian government have independent requirements, and our determination that your grinders need not be assigned VINs would have no effect on Canadian requirements. NHTSA cannot prohibit your company from assigning VINs (in accordance with the format prescribed in Part 565) to your grinders to meet Canadian requirements.

However, since the grinders are not "motor vehicles," I would recommend that your company ensure that grinders sold in the U.S. not be assigned VINs. For U.S. purposes, assigning VINs to your grinders may cause confusion as to whether the grinders are "motor vehicles." If a DuraTech grinder had a VIN, state officials, including law enforcement officers and highway inspectors, reviewing the VIN may question why the grinder has no certification label pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567 Certification (i.e., certifying that a vehicle meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)(at 49 CFR Part 571) applicable to the vehicle type), and why the grinder does not appear to meet such safety standards. Your U.S. customers may find it difficult to respond to such questions.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:565#VSA
d:6/4/97